> On 17 Oct 2018, at 11:08, Simon Urli <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>>>>>>> I reused the existing UI which does not look so bad IMO (see the
>>>>>>> screenshot in the design page).
>>>>>> This is what happens in the AntiSpam app when the event is cancelled (ie
>>>>>> when it finds some spam in the doc):
>>>>>> https://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Extension/AntiSpam%20Tool%20Application/antispam-error.png
>>>>>> As you can see it’s not really user-friendly.
>>>>>> Maybe you don’t get this because you’re running inside a job? But in
>>>>>> this case I don’t understand why you need a listener since you check for
>>>>>> XClass before you start the move/rename.
>>>>>> I must be missing something.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't check before I start the move/rename, I'm checking after the job
>>>>> already started. I reuse exactly the same mechanism as the one used when
>>>>> refactoring a page that belongs to an extension:
>>>>> https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14591.
>>>> Yes and I remember mentioning that for me it’s too late… How do you
>>>> rollback the move/rename if you find an XClass after having renamed/moved
>>>> 100 pages? And yes there’s the same problem with the other refactoring
>>>> (and I already mentioned the problem) but we need to improve at some point
>>>> and not continue doing it in a suboptimal way. We need to put ourselves in
>>>> the shoes of the user.
>>>
>>> Actually you don't have to rollback: the listener is catching the event
>>> before doing the refactoring, so the user has a chance to edit the list of
>>> pages to refactor before the refactor begins.
>> Before any page in the set has been moved/renamed?
>> Are we running 2 jobs? One job to perform the check on all pages and another
>> job to perform the refactoring?
>
> No, to be precise here we are talking about a MoveJob which extends
> AbstractEntityJobWithChecks (same for DeleteJob and RenameJob): when the job
> starts a method runInternal() is called, which performs a check by creating a
> DeletingEvent (as some documents might be deleted) and propagating it to the
> observationManager.
>
> Then it's catched by the listener and processed: only after this step, the
> job will be really started.
ok cool, I don’t fully understand the implementation but I don’t need to ;) (I
can check the code if I need).
All that’s important is that the user can cancel before the refactoring starts
and that’s great!
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) this is after the fact. Imagine that you’re renaming a set of pages
>>>>>>>> and among them there are several coming from an app. It’ll work fine
>>>>>>>> on pages not having an XClass (like moving the page having an XObject
>>>>>>>> of that XClass) and then failing down the line on the page having the
>>>>>>>> XClass. That’s a problem because the xobject page will be wrongly
>>>>>>>> moved, since it doesn’t make sense that it’s moved if the other pages
>>>>>>>> of the app are not moved. Generally speaking you’ll have a bad state
>>>>>>>> that is not easy to rollback.
>>>>>>>> This is why for me the check also has to be done in the move/rename UI
>>>>>>>> and verify that among the list of pages there are none with XClass and
>>>>>>>> if so prevent moving/renaming any page.
>>>>>>>> This is not in contradiction with the listener but the more important
>>>>>>>> (from a usage POV) is the check in the move/rename UI and not the
>>>>>>>> listener which is a more advanced use case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There might be a misunderstanding here: I use the listener to check the
>>>>>>> event that are fired during the rename/move. As you can see in my
>>>>>>> screenshot, I got the warning in the move/refactoring UI.
>>>>>> This listener is registered only during rename/move?
>>>>>> What happens if I write a script that moves/renames pages with XClass?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nop the listener is globally registered, so I assume it would be
>>>>> triggered when running a script too.
>>>> ok, so try this:
>>>> http://playground.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/delete/MyPage/?confirm=1
>>>> What happens?
>
> When doing:
> localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/delete/Menu/?confirm=1
>
> I first get a warning because of the secret token, and if I ask to continue I
> get redirected to the delete page, so I got the warning as for
> renaming/moving pages.
Ok, I was trying to find a UI way to not go through the rename/move warning but
I don’t think that’s possible ;-)
What I wanted to show is that right now we don’t have a nice UI when an event
is cancelled and it bubble up in the UI (which is what you can see on the
Antispam app screensht).
But it doesn’t matter in this case since it always go through the job and thus
we won’t have it and for scripts there’s no UI anyway so it’s normal to get an
exception.
> Now concerning scripts, I was wrong in my previous answer: we check in the
> listener if the job is interactive or not, and if it's not interactive we
> skip the listener.
> Now we might improve this behaviour later.
Ok. It might be good to open a jira so that we don’t forget the use case.
Thanks
-Vincent
> Simon
>>>
>>> Coming back to you after I checked :)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now going back on "Copy" the page, it's another job as I cannot rely
>>>>>>>>> on a "Deleting" event. I checked quickly and I don't think I really
>>>>>>>>> could rely on other events for this: basically copying is about
>>>>>>>>> creating a document and updating its content, and I don't think we
>>>>>>>>> want to rely on those event for this mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So unless you have another proposal to handle this case, I propose to
>>>>>>>>> simply drop it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>>>>> AFAIK if you copy a set of pages with pages having an XClass in it,
>>>>>>>> then the copied pages won’t work so we shouldn’t drop this. We should
>>>>>>>> just implement the protection at the UI level (ie the copy action),
>>>>>>>> same as for rename/move and not implement the listener part (ie not
>>>>>>>> support the script use case).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't agree: the pages would work, but if they contain XObject they
>>>>>>> won't use the copied XClass, only the older one.
>>>>>>> So for me the issue is not exactly the same: the problematic is not
>>>>>>> about copying an XClass here, but a couple XClass + XObject. More
>>>>>>> difficult to detect and to handle IMO.
>>>>>> I still think we should handle it with a warning to explain this. It’s
>>>>>> easy for me, we just need to check for XClass and warn that any copied
>>>>>> pages having a link to this XClass will no longer point to it but will
>>>>>> keep pointing to the original XClass. Easy to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can handle it only on the UI side then.
>>>> Yes, I agree.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/18 10:27 AM, Simon Urli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>> ok trying to sum-up (I'm only talking about cases with XClass below,
>>>>>>>>>> to simplify):
>>>>>>>>>> - according to Vincent, we should completely prevent simple users
>>>>>>>>>> to copy/move/rename and only allow advanced users to do it after a
>>>>>>>>>> warning
>>>>>>>>>> - according to Adel & Clément: preventing simple users will be
>>>>>>>>>> useless as they can easily switch the advanced feature in their
>>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>>> - according to Marius copying a page/app is not necessarily
>>>>>>>>>> harmful compared to moving/renaming and we should manage it
>>>>>>>>>> differently.
>>>>>>>>>> I really don't know the practice of users on the field, but it looks
>>>>>>>>>> to me that preventing simple users to do the action and telling them
>>>>>>>>>> to ask an advanced user is actually a good trade-off:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. it will warn users that they might be doing something wrong
>>>>>>>>>> 2. it's not something completely blocking: either they ask for the
>>>>>>>>>> admin/advanced user, or they know they can switch the advanced
>>>>>>>>>> features by themselves, at their own risks
>>>>>>>>>> Now maybe we can only do the warning for the "copy" action.
>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/25/18 11:36 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marius,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2018, at 11:34, Marius Dumitru Florea
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:12 AM Vincent Massol
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Sep 2018, at 16:58, Simon Urli <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/18 4:53 PM, Adel Atallah wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the warning, but I would not forbid simple users from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> renaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or moving pages but instead just hide the action (from the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> menu).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK I should have written it: by "forbid" I meant:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Hide the action from the menu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Return an error message if the user try to access the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> renaming/moving page (using forged URL)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you suggest we shouldn't do 2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So +1 to prevent/warn the user when doing a move/renaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND copy pages containing XClass definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FTR, copying a single page having an XClass definition is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous (it
>>>>>>>>>>>> won't break the application that owns the page), as it only
>>>>>>>>>>>> creates a new
>>>>>>>>>>>> class definition. Copying an entire application is not dangerous
>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The copy won't work like the original application (this justifies
>>>>>>>>>>>> a warning
>>>>>>>>>>>> as it may fail the user expectations), but the original
>>>>>>>>>>>> application will
>>>>>>>>>>>> still work. Renaming or moving an application is dangerous as it
>>>>>>>>>>>> breaks the
>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes you’re correct. Unless the user does a copy + delete ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the message should list all such pages).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 to hide the action from the menu (if you’re talking about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Move/Rename” and “Copy" actions) because:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) you get to choose whether you move/rename/copy children after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you click
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the action
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) even when the current page has an XClass, the user wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why he cannot see/click on the action. It’s better that he can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get an error message, explaining why and telling him that to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contact an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced users if he really needs to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 4:44 PM Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users might currently break their AWM application by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> renaming/moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages containing XClass definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need a proper refactoring operation to be able to properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move/rename. But this feature might take a while to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime I propose that we prevent users from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> renaming/moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages containing XClass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I propose is the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Forbid completely *simple users* to rename/move pages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> XClass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Display a warning to *advanced users* when they perform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation: the same kind of warning we already have when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> edit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on XWiki pages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Urli
>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>> [email protected]
>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> [email protected]
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
