9 Feb
2017
9 Feb
'17
12:14 p.m.
Rewriting the import UI is not part of the proposed options right now.
If you have the time to do it, sure.
In the meantime what we have right now is that you ask to import some
page and don't see anything in the page history while I think most
people will expect to see a new version with an "import" comment.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
On 9 Feb 2017, at 10:18, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
If we generate a new version then the user may get confused when comparing
the versions. Seeing "No changes" when comparing two consecutive versions
of a page can make the user loose his trust in the diff: "There must be
some change that the diff doesn't detect because otherwise I wouldn't have
two versions".
I think we should keep the current behavior but we should improve the
status displayed after the import. Besides the list of pages that have been
imported (saved with a new version) we can have a list of pages that have
been skipped (because there were no changes). Or we could mark the skipped
pages distinctly in the list of imported pages. I think the users will
appreciate this, especially since it allows them to see clearly what pages
have really been changed by the import.
Sounds good to me. Would be nice to have some saved job logs for imports too (as we have
for DW upgrades) and the info that the page was skipped would be in that log and the admin
could go back to check what was done for a given import. Or something like this. But
having a temporary report showing this info would already be a good first step.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Marius
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> We have a unintended regression in the standard import: if what you
> import is identical to what is already in the database (including the
> author) it won't add a new version (if you use the default option "Add
> a new version to the existing page").
>
> What happen in practice is that if you keep calling XWikiDocument#set*
> methods with the same data it won't update the metadata or content
> dirty flags. This flags are what hibernate store look at to know if it
> should add a new version or not.
>
> You can reproduce the same behavior with a simple script which load a
> document, always set the same content and save. You will notice that
> the history of that document does not change.
>
> So the question is do we force metadata dirty to true all the time in
> the instance output filter or do we keep this feature (in which case
> we should optimize it a bit to not do the useless XWiki#saveDocument
> but that's another subject).
>
> WDYT ?
>
> It could be seen as a nice feature but in practice my first reaction
> was WTF and you often want to be sure the import actually did
> something so I'm +1 to force metadata dirty. But I'm +0 to keep the
> current behavior if there is a majority for it.
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>