8 Feb
2019
8 Feb
'19
9:24 a.m.
On 8 Feb 2019, at 09:20, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 9:52 AM Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
We could keep that info, it could be useful indeed.
I was referring to hiding the option (the checkbox). This makes the UI simpler to use for
simple user, which is the direction we want to go and I cannot find tons of reasons why
simple users would want to not fix links… Actually in the past all issues that were raised
were the opposite, users who didn’t check the box, and then we made it checked by
default.
Hi Marius/All,
See below
simple
using
the renamed pages continue to work after the rename”.
On 31 Jan 2019, at 11:29, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi Marius/all,
> On 30 Jan 2019, at 15:45, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> 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 > 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
?
>
> * 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 :)
Nobody replied to this proposal but I really find
it the best by far and
it solves your other questions too while making the UI simpler globally.
The only issue I see with this option is that by hiding the "Update Links"
the simple users might not be aware of the side effects of the rename
operation: the fact that other pages will have to be updated. Seeing that a
page you want to rename is referenced in many places can make you think
twice about the rename. Now, the current hint for "Update Links"
doesn't indicate all the side
effects. For instance it indicates the number of back-links to the page
you're trying to rename but it *doesn't include back-links to child pages*
(when child pages are preserved). So what I said above it not really true
ATM either.
Yes, it’s actually worse in a sense :) Right now it makes it seem as if it’ll work
perfectly well…
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Marius
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> [snip]