Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius issue tracker labels
On 2016-06-04 3:23 PM, Simon Hanna wrote: I'm not sure "rest" is the way it's currently being used either: it might be more useful to rename it to be like the wait-for-mailman tag to indicate bugs that occur due to mailmanclient. 'wait-for-mailman' is just a little weird given that we use the term 'mailman' for the whole umbrella project. 'wait-for-core' is a little better but it doesn't accurately describe blockers on mailman.client. 'wait-for-api'? I'm also okay with leaving it as it us until/unless we figure out something better. In most cases I think we would have to wait for both core and mailmanclient. Thats why I don't think we need two labels for it. In my opinion it would be better to have only one label and always link to an issue in mailmanclient and/or core We actually changed it to be just "blocked" so it can refer to any thing we might be waiting on, including things just in client, things in core and client, and other issues, since that turned out to be useful for triage. Terri ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius issue tracker labels
>>I'm not sure "rest" is the way it's currently being used either: it >might be >>more useful to rename it to be like the wait-for-mailman tag to >indicate bugs >>that occur due to mailmanclient. > >'wait-for-mailman' is just a little weird given that we use the term >'mailman' >for the whole umbrella project. 'wait-for-core' is a little better but >it >doesn't accurately describe blockers on mailman.client. >'wait-for-api'? I'm >also okay with leaving it as it us until/unless we figure out something >better. In most cases I think we would have to wait for both core and mailmanclient. Thats why I don't think we need two labels for it. In my opinion it would be better to have only one label and always link to an issue in mailmanclient and/or core ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] New Interface
Hi, On 04-Jun-2016 1:11 am, "Barry Warsaw" wrote: >I've always wanted styles to be composable, by which I mean that a style can >describe just a partial set of attributes. For now I'll call these stylets. >One stylet might define how autoresponses work, while another might describe >how digests work. In a sense, this is analogous to how the composition was >broken down in MM2.1, but without all the ugly mixin stuff. How can this composability be achieved in a model? I mean that the size of a table is fixed in a model and if a style describes just a partial set of attributes then what would be stored in other attributes? Also how would this partial style be applied to a mailing list? Problems that are blocking me for past two-three days: Solved: 1: Getting a list of all styleable attributes. Since you have approved the new interface this problem is solved. Unsolved: 1: How to trigger the fallback mechanism? 2: Current 'IStyle' interface allows us to define either a partial style(stylet, describing just a partial set of attributes) or a complete style. But is that possible with a model? 3: If I go for style composabiltiy as described by you then how would I represent that idea in REST and Postorius? Thanks, Harshit Bansal ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] New Interface
On Jun 04, 2016, at 07:38 PM, Harshit Bansal wrote: >Would you like to keep these attributes(those which are unused and we >don't want to support) or should these be removed? For now, keep them. It would probably make sense to open an issue on gitlab listing the unused attributes to delete. We can mark that as a tech-debt issue and address it outside of the context of your work. >From core's point of view this idea seems to be fine but I am unable to think >of any way of representing this idea in Postorius(since new styles would be >created there)? Yes, the ui issues are challenging. ;) I think it would be fairly easy to represent in REST. >Earlier while discussing we decided to make style composable in terms of >other styles(inheritance and fallback mechanism). For example, if a user >wants to modify only the the autoresponses attributes of Style1, then, he may >create a child style of Style1 and change only the attributes related to the >autoresponses and rest of the attributes will take their values from the >parent style(Style1). Also is there any advantage of making styles >composable in terms of stylets? It allows the admin to only be concerned with the attributes defined in the stylet. It can be fairly difficult otherwise to figure out what a specific stylet modifies. >The new interface will contain only styleable attributes and not any >immutable attributes like created_at. All the immutable attributes >will reside in the existing 'IMailingList' interface. Cool. >> Then it may be possible to do a lot of cool things on stylets, such as >> impose permissions on changing or using one; recording the stylets used >> with a particular mailing list, so if you change the stylet, the mailing >> list automatically changes, etc. > >How will be the permissions enforced without authorization system? Postorius would enforce it for now. When we have the authproxy, it will do it for scripts. >> The only other comment on the above paragraph has to do with requiring a >> style to contain *all* the attributes. How would you handle the >> composability in that case? > >All attributes will be required only in case the style doesn't inherit >from any other base style. In case the style inherits from some other >base style then the dictionary(argument to the constructor) will >contain only those attributes which the user wants to change and rest >of the attributes would be taken from the parent style. > >Also could you suggest some default value(such as 'DEFER') for >styleable attributes that would trigger the fall back mechanism to >take values from the parent style. That's tricky. If we weren't interfacing to a database (i.e. in pure Python), we'd have a marker object, e.g. `INHERIT = object()` but we have to worry about database column types. I'm not sure what the right thing to do there is. -Barry ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius issue tracker labels
On Jun 04, 2016, at 08:46 AM, Terri Oda wrote: >I'm not sure "rest" is the way it's currently being used either: it might be >more useful to rename it to be like the wait-for-mailman tag to indicate bugs >that occur due to mailmanclient. 'wait-for-mailman' is just a little weird given that we use the term 'mailman' for the whole umbrella project. 'wait-for-core' is a little better but it doesn't accurately describe blockers on mailman.client. 'wait-for-api'? I'm also okay with leaving it as it us until/unless we figure out something better. -Barry ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius issue tracker labels
On 2016-06-04 1:11 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Hi, all I just went through the labels in the Postorius issue tracker https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/labels and documented the undocumented as well as changing a couple of labels. Comments very welcome. There are two labels whose purpose I'm unclear on, "subscription" and "ui". I think "ui" should be split into "appearance" (CSS) and "workflow" (what operations can be done from which forms). If so, I think "subscription" really should be merged into "workflow" (at least the open issue should be). It looks good to me, and I especially like the proposed UI split. I think the "subscription" tag can go away: it was used to flag bugs related to subscribing and unsubscribing, but I don't think that's a super useful category in and of itself right now . I'm not sure "rest" is the way it's currently being used either: it might be more useful to rename it to be like the wait-for-mailman tag to indicate bugs that occur due to mailmanclient. Terri ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] New Interface
Hi, Thanks for replying in spite of being busy! > As you've noticed, some of the attributes in the model class aren't > described > in the interface. Those are mostly the legacy attributes which should > eventually go away (because they are unused or represent features we don't > want to support), or converted to better database types (see the PickleType > for accept_these_nonmembers). It's gotten a lot better, but there are > still > some holdovers from the old MM2.1 code, so more opportunities to clean up > and > modernize. Would you like to keep these attributes(those which are unused and we don't want to support) or should these be removed? > I've always wanted styles to be composable, by which I mean that a style > can > describe just a partial set of attributes. For now I'll call these > stylets. > One stylet might define how autoresponses work, while another might > describe > how digests work. In a sense, this is analogous to how the composition was > broken down in MM2.1, but without all the ugly mixin stuff. > > The current IStyles support this, but of course they are only applied to > mailing lists when they are created, and changing a style does not change > any > list to which the style was applied. >From core's point of view this idea seems to be fine but I am unable to think of any way of representing this idea in Postorius(since new styles would be created there)? Earlier while discussing we decided to make style composable in terms of other styles(inheritance and fallback mechanism). For example, if a user wants to modify only the the autoresponses attributes of Style1, then, he may create a child style of Style1 and change only the attributes related to the autoresponses and rest of the attributes will take their values from the parent style(Style1). Also is there any advantage of making styles composable in terms of stylets? >>I am thinking of adding a new interface named 'IStyleable' to the >>mailman core. All the styleable attributes from the current >>'IMailingList' interface will be moved to this new interface. The >>current 'IMailingList' interface does not provide documentation for >>all the styleable attributes. This new interface will contain all >>styleable interfaces arranged in an orderly way with proper >>documentation. This new interface then can be extended by the existing >>'IMailingList' interface and the new 'IStyle' interface that I am >>writing. > > I think this makes sense. You're refactoring out the interface for the > attributes of a mailing list apart from the functionality that a list > provides. There may be some attributes which aren't style related, > e.g. created_at, and perhaps some that shouldn't get refactored because > they > identify the list (e.g. list_name and list_id), but we can discuss that. The new interface will contain only styleable attributes and not any immutable attributes like created_at. All the immutable attributes will reside in the existing 'IMailingList' interface. New interface(WIP): https://gitlab.com/_Harshit_/mailman/commit/6c94e220cd5f5ba857fa003bdc17919ca6f9217b > Then it may be possible to do a lot of cool things on stylets, such as > impose > permissions on changing or using one; recording the stylets used with a > particular mailing list, so if you change the stylet, the mailing list > automatically changes, etc. How will be the permissions enforced without authorization system? > Let me see if I understand: you want to query the IStyleable interface to > know > what attributes are allowed in a style. It makes sense in that case to use > a > separate interface just for that purpose, without cluttering it up with all > the other interface bits specifically for mailing list operation > (e.g. get_roster(), subscribe(), and immutable attributes like created_at > and > list_id). As I mentioned above that the new interface is going to have only styleable attributes. > The only other comment on the above paragraph has to do with requiring a > style > to contain *all* the attributes. How would you handle the composability in > that case? All attributes will be required only in case the style doesn't inherit from any other base style. In case the style inherits from some other base style then the dictionary(argument to the constructor) will contain only those attributes which the user wants to change and rest of the attributes would be taken from the parent style. Also could you suggest some default value(such as 'DEFER') for styleable attributes that would trigger the fall back mechanism to take values from the parent style. Thanks, Harshit Bansal. ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archiv
[Mailman-Developers] Postorius issue tracker labels
Hi, all I just went through the labels in the Postorius issue tracker https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/labels and documented the undocumented as well as changing a couple of labels. Comments very welcome. There are two labels whose purpose I'm unclear on, "subscription" and "ui". I think "ui" should be split into "appearance" (CSS) and "workflow" (what operations can be done from which forms). If so, I think "subscription" really should be merged into "workflow" (at least the open issue should be). WDYT? Steve ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
