Hi Marius/all,
> On 30 Jan 2019, at 15:45, Marius Dumitru Florea
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>
> I'm working on https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-1660 (I need it for
> https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13352) and I'd like to change the page
> rename job (from refactoring module) to update the existing objects when a
> class is renamed *if the "Update links" options is checked*.
>
> Of course, we could add a new option (e.g. "Update objects") but:
>
> * it complicates the rename UI (too many options)
> * I think most of the users understand the current "Update links" option as
> "update the places where this page is *used*". I don't think it makes sense
> to have separate options (at least at the UI level) for things like "Update
> macro calls" or "Update image includes".
> * I don't see why you would want to update the back-links but not the
> objects (or the other way around).
Sounds good to me in general.
> If we agree on using a single option ("Update links") then the next
> questions are:
>
> * Is there a better name? I think "Update links" is a good name for simple
> users so I would keep it. Another option is "Update references" but it has
> a special meaning for XWiki developers.
Maybe "Update other pages” with a hint saying “Ensure that other pages using
the renamed pages continue to work after the rename”.
?
>
> * Should we update the hint for the "Update links" option? I think we
> should, but only for advanced users, since they should be aware of the
> implications of renaming a class. Simple users are not aware of the
> existence of objects, most probably, so I wouldn't complicate their lives.
Would be nicer to find a single message that work for everyone but I agree it’s
not easy if we wish to provide details.
I feel a nicer option would be to NOT show “Update other pages” for simple
users since that should always be checked. Only offer the ability to uncheck it
for advanced users and this solves the hint issue too :)
> The final question is whether we should keep the rename job question about
> classes. I think we should. The reason we added it is because renaming a
> class is currently dangerous. Updating the objects makes it a bit less
> dangerous because the data is preserved, but classes are often used in
> scripts (e.g. a live table) and those scripts are not updated so there's a
> high chance that something will not work correctly after the class rename.
Sounds good.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
