October 2016 - xwiki-devs@xwiki.org

[xwiki-devs] [proposal] Process to handle Pull Requests
by Ludovic Dubost 10 May '19

10 May '19

Hi devs, I don't think there is currently a process that is in place to handle pull requests and I have the feeling that the way there are handled today is a bit random. There are usually comments sent out on each pull request but sometimes it seems that some pull requests are going in sleep mode and it's not clear who is in charge. I would like to suggest that a process is put in place where it's clear who is responsible for a pull request and a status is given to the contributors that propose that pull request. Something like: Assigned developer: XXXX Status: New -> new pull request, not yet assigned Assigned -> assigned to a developer, he is in charge of reviewing the pull request and ask for modifications or accept it. The developer can auto assign it to himself. If nobody does, we need to decide how they will be taken into account. ModificationsRequired -> for now rejected with comments. Contributor needs to apply comments and then change back to Assigned for further evaluation VoteRequired -> there are no more comments, but a vote is required as the changes to XWiki core are important WaitingFinalAuthorization -> optional step for complex patches where a additional authorization would be required (need to define who would be the persons that give the authorization) WaitingApplication -> there are no more comments and no changes or vote required. The pull request can be applied and is waiting for a developer to apply it Abandoned -> contributors is abandoning the pull request (cannot do the changes, no more time, etc..) Rejected -> pull request is rejected (quality not enough, etc..) Applied -> pull request is applied What do you think ? Ludovic -- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

7 12

[xwiki-devs] Velocity 2.0 and DeprecatedCheckUberspector
by Claude Brisson 20 Jun '18

20 Jun '18

Hi. I'm currently working on Velocity 2.0 packaging. If that's OK with you, I would like to incorporate DeprecatedCheckUberspector.java into Velocity, but I need a statement from your part to be able to change its licence to Apache 2.0 (LGPL and Apache 2.0 licences aren't compatible). By the way, I take this opportunity to tell you that if there is another specific part of xwiki-commons-velocity that you think should be integrated on our side, or an important missing feature you'd like to insist on, don't hesitate. I already integrated VELOCITY-825, for instance, so String->Enum constant conversions are now handled by Velocity. There may be other important conversion cases you'd like to see handled. Regards, Claude

4 8

[xwiki-devs] [Vote] Assignee for PR: Contributor or Committer?
by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) 07 May '18

07 May '18

Hi, We have discussed this subject multiple times, but we don't have an official vote and conclusion on the topic. Problem: In JIRA who is the Assignee of an issue fixed by a Pull Request? 1: Contributor - he provided the solution - giving the attributions, the contributor might feel encouraged to contribute more - we could do some JIRA statistics on external contributions, but this use case can be covered by GitHub statistics 2: Committer - he does the merging on his account and he becomes responsible for the committed code. - in case there are problems, the committer needs to find solution, since we can't rely on contributors availability - in doing the PR review, the committer spends a lot of time analyzing and testing the provided solution We are talking here about complete solutions provided by the PR, since in case of partial solutions, the committer can assign himself on the issue (depends on the quantity of modification he does). Let me know what you think, Caty

9 11

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Entry point for Extensions
by Vincent Massol 18 Aug '17

18 Aug '17

Hi devs, Problem ======= We have 2 issues right now when installing an extension in XWiki: 1) It’s not clear where is the entry point of that extension. - Example1: an app that is only for admins and only has a ConfigurableClass - Example2: an app that provides a macro and doesn’t have a UI 2) Even when an extension registers itself in the Applications Panel, the user still need to refresh the page or navigate away to see it. Proposal ======== * Introduce the concept of Entry point (a.k.a home page) in Extension metadata * Have the EM UI display the extension’s entry point (when there’s one) after having installed the extension so that the user can click on it and be taken to the home page of the extension. This would make extensions more discoverable IMO. Implementation Details ================== * Some maven extension metadata properties in pom.xml * A format to represent an entry point. It shouldn’t be a full URL since that needs to be computed at runtime. Basically it should contain: ** The document reference ** The action to use (view, admin, etc) - optional, should default to “view" ** The query string to use - optional, should default to an empty query string This corresponds to the notion of ResourceReference (EntityResourceReference to be precise). However we don’t have any textual representation of it ATM. WDYT? Good idea? Bad idea? Thanks -Vincent

8 16

[xwiki-devs] Edit Modes vs. Editors
by Marius Dumitru Florea 18 Feb '17

18 Feb '17

Hi devs, While working on adding extension points to support the replacement of the current WYSIWYG editor I came to the conclusion that we need to make a clear distinction between Edit Modes and Editors. An Edit Mode is basically an HTML *form* that allows you to edit some data that is associated with an XWiki document. There can be for instance an edit mode to edit the document title and content, another edit mode to edit the document objects, another one to edit the document access rights, and so on. Ideally, XWiki extensions should be able to provide new edit modes. The current place where we expose the Edit Modes is the Edit Menu. Class, Objects, Access Rights, Inline Form are well defined edit modes. Before we talk about the Wiki and WYSIWYG "edit modes" let's define what an editor is. An Editor is basically a form *field*. Most of the time it is an enhanced form field, a widget, that allows you to edit a single document field. The editor obviously depends on the field type. There can be a date editor (known as date picker), a plain text editor, a rich text editor, and so on. Ideally, XWiki extensions should be able to provide new editors for specific data types. For instance an extension could replace the date picker. Another one could replace the rich text editor. The relation between Edit Modes and Editors is many to many. An Edit Mode can use multiple editors and an Editor can be used by multiple Edit Modes. For instance the rich text editor can be used in the "Content" edit mode (for document content) but also in the Inline Form edit mode, for TextArea object properties. If we agree with this distinction then I think XWiki should have separate extension points for Edit Modes vs. Editors. What does this mean for the CKEditor integration? Well, CKEditor is an editor.. so it doesn't make sense to have a "CKEditor" edit mode. CKEditor can be used to edit the document content as well as the TextArea object properties that contain wiki syntax. So there should be no "CKEditor" entry in the Edit Menu. Otherwise we need to add "Inline Form - CKEditor" also, and so on for each Edit Mode that can use the CKEditor. So I think we should go in the following direction: * Replace Wiki and WYSIWYG entries from the Edit menu with a single Entry that will represent the Edit Mode for editing the document title, content and syntax. I'm not yet sure what name should we use for this Edit Mode. Let's call it "Content" for now. * The default edit action (for simple users) will ** open the Inline Form edit mode if the document has a sheet associated ** open the "Content" edit mode otherwise * The "Content" edit mode will use the Editor configured in the User Profile, falling-back on the wiki preferences * The Inline Form edit mode will use for TextArea properties the Editor specified in the property meta data, falling-back on the User Profile setting, then on the wiki preferences * We should have an administration section to configure the default Editor as wiki level (wiki preferences) We don't have to implement all this right away. I'd like to start by making the editor list from the TextArea meta data, User Profile and wiki preferences extensible, so that CKEditor can add its entry there. WDYT? Thanks, Marius

8 14

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] New Best Practice for closing issues as Duplicate
by Manuel Smeria 25 Jan '17

25 Jan '17

Hello Devs, I would like to propose a new best practice for the way we close issues as Duplicate. As an example I've reported this issue: http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13728 which was later closed as a Duplicate to http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13729. >From my perspective, this is not correct since the issue I reported is valid from an user's POV. I would have preferred that my issue was renamed and that developers would have added some technical information as a comment to it if they wanted to do so. It just doesn't make any sense to me to close a perfectly valid issue as a Duplicate just to create another one that has a more technically correct summary and description. It also doesn't make sense to close the original issue as a Duplicate to a duplicate issue :) (pun intended) I see things like this: my issue's description is a use-case of the issue later reported by Edy, so if anything, Edy's issue should be closed as a Duplicate to mine and not the other way around. One scenario where I think issues dated previously should be closed as Duplicate is if the new issue has already been fixed. For example when a Developer doesn't notice an older issue and starts working on the new one instead of closing the new one as a Duplicate and work on the older one. There might be more, feel free to add them to this thread. So, what I propose is that we don't close original issues as Duplicate unless it falls into the category previously described or some other exceptions that I can't think of now and might occur. Thanks, Manuel

7 18

[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] xwiki.org Governance change for paying extensions
by Vincent Massol 09 Jan '17

09 Jan '17

Hi devs, I’d like to propose some changes to the governance related to paying extensions and extensions.xwiki.org and the Extension Manager. * Make extensions.xwiki.org an extension repo for free and open source extensions only. This is the case till now but during the last governance change VOTE we had said we could allow non-free versions. After more thinking I believe it’s better that companies who want to have paying apps provide them through their own extension repository. One issue is that these companies will need to have users register and log in and we cannot do that on xwiki.org. * Allow top sponsoring companies to have their extension repository defined in the default XWiki configuration (in xwiki.properties). I’m proposing that sponsoring companies require 3 active committers to be able to have their stores listed by default in the XWiki config. The same would be done on nexus.xwiki.org which would proxy any maven repo from a top sponsoring company. Note that any company (even one not participating to the development of the XWiki project can provide an extension repository with some instructions for users to add their repo to their config - This point here is only about having some repos by default). * Allow the top sponsoring company (TSC) an advertising space on the home page of extensions.xwiki.org to advertise extensions it wishes to promote. Please cast your votes. Here’s my +1 Thanks -Vincent

6 9

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal][UX] Change the user type for the Admin user to 'simple'
by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) 29 Nov '16

29 Nov '16

Hi, A simple change that could improve the experience for newcomers would be that the default Admin user to have a simple type. One of the problems new users have is that they have too many options in the Edit menu and this can be confusing. The downside is that it will add an additional step for developers/testers to change the user type back (or at least until we provide a Developer user/profile). Also we would need to make sure the documentation is up to date and fix the tests. WDTY? I've created http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XE-1580 Thanks, Caty

5 13

[xwiki-devs] Bootstrap 3.x.x will no longer be developed
by Guillaume Delhumeau 14 Nov '16

14 Nov '16

Last month, one of the main contributors of Bootstrap has announced that the 3.x.x branch will no longer be developed [1]. It means that they are currently putting all their efforts to Bootstrap 4.x, and now they are releasing Alphas so the version 4.0 should be available soon. In Flamingo, we use Bootstrap 3.3.7. If we decide to upgrade to Bootstrap 4, we will have the following problems: 1. Bootstrap 4 is not retro-compatible with Bootstrap 3. There are new components, and some have been removed. We know that some extensions are using Bootstrap elements so there is a risk they're gonna be broken. 2. Bootstrap 4 no longer uses the LESS language. Instead, they use SASS [2] (the SCSS variant). Which means we should integrate SASS in XWiki, as we did for LESS. Some work could be re-used, but there are still work to do, and it increases the number of CSS preprocessor to support. For the record, the team has mentioned that Bootstrap might use PostCSS in the future! I've already spoken about this problem in a previous thread last year [3], but the problem will probably hits us in the following months. It may be a strong topic for XWiki 9.x or 10.x. Note: I haven't mentioned the Bootstrap alternative called "Foundation" [4], since it would be a bigger breaking change :) Thanks, Guillaume [1] https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/20631#issuecomment-244844932 [2] http://sass-lang.com/guide [3] http://markmail.org/message/7sbviier23wzfadf [4] http://foundation.zurb.com/ -- Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project

4 4

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Make it simple for users to have filterable/sortable tables by default in XE
by Vincent Massol 14 Nov '16

14 Nov '16

Hi devs, I’ve noticed that users often try to make simple tables filterable/sortable. And LT are too complex for simple tables. Actually we do implement the feature already in xwiki-platform (tablefilterNsort.js.js + icons) but we don’t make it easy for users to use it. Right now a user has to know the magic incantation. They can find the doc here: * http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/XWiki/XWikiSyntax?syntax=2.1&sec… * http://snippets.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Table+Sorter What I’d like to propose is to 1/ Include a new core macro in xwiki-platform that would allow to transformation a table into a sortable/filterable table, as it’s done by http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Make+All+Wiki+Tables+S…: {{table [sort="true|false" filter="true|false” oddEven=“true|false”}} |=heading1|=heading2 |cell1|cell2 {{/table}}} 2/ In the CKEditor UI when inserting a table, offer several checkboxes for Sortable, Filterable, OddEven and have the WYSIWYG editor insert this table macro when checked. My rationale for wanting to include it is because I consider this to be a basic use case (core use case) that would benefit from being by default in any flavor of XWiki. WDYT? Note that if we should not agree to have it by default then it also doesn’t make sense to have tablefilterNsort.js in xwiki-platform IMO. Thanks -Vincent

4 3