8 Feb
2017
8 Feb
'17
2:33 p.m.
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
8 Feb
8 Feb
3:12 p.m.
Not storing unnecessary versions looks like a feature for me.
Imagine a scheduler job that update some pages every night, I would be glad
that it does not create new versions when nothing has changed in the end.
Maybe I look at this with a biased vision: I know that having a lot of
versions of a document can cause problems (when we move the document for
example). If we had not this problem, maybe I would have the same opinion
than you.
Thanks,
2017-02-08 14:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>om>:
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
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
3:13 p.m.
Note that in GIT, you cannot add a file to a commit if this file has no
change.
2017-02-08 15:12 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Delhumeau <
guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com>gt;:
Not storing unnecessary versions looks like a feature
for me.
Imagine a scheduler job that update some pages every night, I would be
glad that it does not create new versions when nothing has changed in the
end.
Maybe I look at this with a biased vision: I know that having a lot of
versions of a document can cause problems (when we move the document for
example). If we had not this problem, maybe I would have the same opinion
than you.
Thanks,
2017-02-08 14:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>om>:
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
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
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
3:43 p.m.
The idea right now is only to discuss import use case, not the
behavior of XWiki#saveDocument.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Guillaume Delhumeau
<guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Not storing unnecessary versions looks like a feature
for me.
Imagine a scheduler job that update some pages every night, I would be glad
that it does not create new versions when nothing has changed in the end.
Maybe I look at this with a biased vision: I know that having a lot of
versions of a document can cause problems (when we move the document for
example). If we had not this problem, maybe I would have the same opinion
than you.
Thanks,
2017-02-08 14:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>om>:
--
Thomas Mortagne
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
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
3:49 p.m.
In that case it seems more natural to have a new revision anyway, to make
sure it has been imported correctly.
2017-02-08 15:43 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>om>:
The idea right now is only to discuss import use case,
not the
behavior of XWiki#saveDocument.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Guillaume Delhumeau
<guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
Not storing unnecessary versions looks like a
feature for me.
Imagine a scheduler job that update some pages every night, I would be
glad
that it does not create new versions when nothing
has changed in the end.
Maybe I look at this with a biased vision: I know that having a lot of
versions of a document can cause problems (when we move the document for
example). If we had not this problem, maybe I would have the same opinion
than you.
Thanks,
2017-02-08 14:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>om>:
--
Thomas Mortagne
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
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project 
3:18 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] So what do we do about https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14016
Hi Thomas,
On 8 Feb 2017, at 14:33, 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.
It’s hard to decide...
Same as you, I also thought it was a nice feature when I learnt that this was what was
happening :)
Actually something I’ve always wanted was to avoid generating new revisions when users
edit a page and click save without changing any content instead of clicking cancel (a lot
of users do this, generating unnecessary revisions and when you’re the owner of a wiki,
it’s a pain to check the diffs to find out that there was no changes). But this could be a
feature implemented at the level of the editor save button I guess. It’s a bit different
since the author would be different but we wouldn’t want a save in this case.
So I’m +0 for both behaviours with a slight preference toward forcing a rev to be
created.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
3:52 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 8 Feb 2017, at 14:33, 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.
It’s hard to decide...
Same as you, I also thought it was a nice feature when I learnt that this was what was
happening :)
Actually something I’ve always wanted was to avoid
generating new revisions when users edit a page and click save without changing any
content instead of clicking cancel (a lot of users do this, generating unnecessary
revisions and when you’re the owner of a wiki, it’s a pain to check the diffs to find out
that there was no changes). But this could be a feature implemented at the level of the
editor save button I guess. It’s a bit different since the author would be different but
we wouldn’t want a save in this case.
The reason it does that is because we force it. See
https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/blob/master/xwiki-platform-core/xwi….
So I’m +0 for both behaviours with a slight preference toward forcing a rev to be
created.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
--
Thomas Mortagne
3:53 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] So what do we do about https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14016
I wouldn't want to have empty revisions.
If you want to change the import, then you can manually call
doc.setContentDirty(true).
On 02/08/2017 08:33 AM, Thomas Mortagne 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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
4:05 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.org> wrote:
I wouldn't want to have empty revisions.
If you want to change the import, then you can manually call
doc.setContentDirty(true).
"So the question is do we force metadata dirty to true all the time in
the instance output filter"
Again the subject here is default import mode only. We are not talking
about XWiki#saveDocument and I would be -1 to force new revision all
the time since we have use cases for this.
On 02/08/2017 08:33 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
4:17 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] So what do we do about https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14016
On 02/08/2017 10:05 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.org> wrote:
Yep, and I was agreeing.
I wouldn't want to have empty revisions.
If you want to change the import, then you can manually call
doc.setContentDirty(true).
"So the question is do we force metadata dirty to true all the time in
the instance output filter"
Again the subject here is default import mode only. We are not talking
about XWiki#saveDocument and I would be -1 to force new revision all
the time since we have use cases for this.
On 02/08/2017 08:33 AM, Thomas Mortagne 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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu 
9 Feb
9 Feb
10:18 a.m.
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.
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
10:25 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] So what do we do about https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14016
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
>
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
>
1:44 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] So what do we do about https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14016
On 9 Feb 2017, at 12:14, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
That’s maybe a technical POV. From a non tech POV, users probably just expect that the
content of their wiki after the import is the same as what is in the XAR.
As a long time xwiki tech user, checking the history of a page that I know was in a XAR
and not seeing an entry and comment would be a WTF for me :)
Thanks
-Vincent
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
>
1:55 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Importing a XAR is quite technical now since you usually don't use
that to install applications and if ever a non technical user import a
XAR he will probably not even look at the history anyway.
On 9 Feb 2017, at 12:14, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
That’s maybe a technical POV. From a non tech POV, users probably just expect that the
content of their wiki after the import is the same as what is in the XAR.
As a long time xwiki tech user, checking the history of a page that I know was in a XAR
and not seeing an entry and comment would be a WTF for me :)
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
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
>
2:02 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] So what do we do about https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14016
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 13:55, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Importing a XAR is quite technical now since you usually don't use
that to install applications and if ever a non technical user import a
XAR he will probably not even look at the history anyway.
Exactly, the only very small improvement that could be made, is about the option checked.
Currently it is saying “Add a new version to the existing page”, which might allow arguing
about none being added. So, maybe we could write, "Add a new version to the existing
page (when modified)” or anything similar.
wdyt ?
On 9 Feb 2017, at 12:14, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
That’s maybe a technical POV. From a non tech POV, users probably just expect that the
content of their wiki after the import is the same as what is in the XAR.
As a long time xwiki tech user, checking the history of a page that I know was in a XAR
and not seeing an entry and comment would be a WTF for me :)
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
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
>
2:07 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] So what do we do about https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-14016
On 9 Feb 2017, at 14:02, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 13:55, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Importing a XAR is quite technical now since you usually don't use
that to install applications and if ever a non technical user import a
XAR he will probably not even look at the history anyway.
Exactly, the only very small improvement that could be made, is about the option checked.
Currently it is saying “Add a new version to the existing page”, which might allow arguing
about none being added. So, maybe we could write, "Add a new version to the existing
page (when modified)” or anything similar.
wdyt ?
Yes that could a simple low cost solution for now.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 9 Feb 2017, at 12:14, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
That’s maybe a technical POV. From a non tech POV, users probably just expect that the
content of their wiki after the import is the same as what is in the XAR.
As a long time xwiki tech user, checking the history of a page that I know was in a XAR
and not seeing an entry and comment would be a WTF for me :) Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
> 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
>>
--
Thomas Mortagne
2776
days inactive
2777
days old
16 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Guillaume Delhumeau -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol