Saturday, May 23, 2015

I continue to be excited about using Lino Noi for my daily work. First of all it is of course a good thing that I finally started to eat my own dog food. But that’s not the reason why I am excited. I am excited because it helps me so much for managing my customer’s tickets.

It is not finished, though. After two phone meetings with two customers yesterday I had a lot of small ideas.

And a big issue is also the fact that the public (anonymous) interface is not yet secure enough. That’s why links to tickets in my blog (e.g. #270) are currently broken. At least they now display a Javascript alert instead of continuing to link to our now obsolete trac server.

The latest changes show again why inject_field (or some analog method, see #246) is so necessary. needs a field current_project, and lino.modlib.clocking needs a field open_session_on_new_ticket. These fields should be on the User model.

How could we work around using inject_field?

First idea: instead of storing these fields directly to the User model, could I store them in their own table. For example called tickets.User and clocking.User. Each these models would have two fields: user (a pointer to User with unique=True) and the given field. Or even more transparent, they would be a subclass of users.User. Multi-table inheritance and polyformy. It seems clear that this would have an impact on the system performance, but Guido tells us to not worry about performance.

A second idea (which I actually had before the first): plugins would define their subclass of User as abstract. But we don’t want to oblige app developers to subclass e.g. User just because they include lino.modlib.contacts. So we need a system for generating the (concrete) User class dynamically. One difficulty is the fact that the standard User class must “know” whether it should be abstract or not. If there are abstract subclasses of it somewhere, then it should be abstract. The Site object cannot discover this on its own because the models are not yet loaded. I might change the extends_models attribute again to include the app labels.

And then (if there is any plugin which extends a model of another plugin), could use the type() function to generate a dynamic concrete User class object (as explained by EOL in a stackoverflow post) and all those abstract subclasses of User as the bases. I am not yet sure where this generated User model should “live”.

Side note: Poor Travis CI! They are doing a trustworthy job of checking every of my commits and sending me an email saying that it is “Still failing”. I know that Lino doesn’t yet pass on travis (ticket #269). But I didn’t yet find a way to tell them that I “temporarily” don’t want them to test every checkin. Or… while we are talking about it… maybe… by simply renaming the .travis.yml file to e.g. .travis_disabled.yml? Let’s try! Yes, that works.