Monday, July 1, 2019

I reviewed the “license” field of all projects to use “BSD-2-Clause” (an SPDX identifier) as suggested by Cyril Roelandt. Thanks, Cyril.

TODO: In some projects the file containing the full licence text is named LICENSE, in some others it is COPYING.

Review the choices API

I started a ticket #3097 because we still don’t have a clear vision about how the URL for the # and @ suggesters should look like. When the editor sees a pattern which triggers an auto-complete action, it must request a list of suggestions. And this list is not the same for every # or @, it also depends on the view (actor), the database object, the field, the query string (i.e. the search string already entered by the user), the permissions of the user, …

The problem is related to some other tickets:

  • #56 (choosers don’t know the requesting user)

  • #86 (allow choosers to filter by master key)

  • #2914 (pass the action request to choosers)

Let’s examine what happens when the user wants to select a value in the field:

GET /choices/tickets/ActiveTickets/assigned_to?query=&start=0
GET /choices/tickets/Tickets/assigned_to?_dc=1561963175048&start=0&limit=20&query=

Instead of saying “/choices/…” (i.e. creating a global resource) we should consider “/choices/” a method on a property:

  • GET /api/tickets/ActiveTickets/123/assigned_to/choices would return the list of choices for that property.

  • GET /api/tickets/ActiveTickets/123/assigned_to would return the property value itself. Something we don’t currently use. For example:

    {'view': 'users/Users/',
      "pk": "7",
      "data": {"username": jean, "first_name": "Jean", ...}}

Note that when we are creating a new ticket

  • GET /api/tickets/ActiveTickets/-99999/assigned_to/choices would return the list of choices for that property.

For suggesters we would say

mp.add_suggester(“#”, tickets.Tickets.objects.all(), …)

This would mean that we add a fourth hierarchy level to our URL patterns:

plugin / actor / row / property

Background thoughts

I considered using a list request with a fmt specifier instead:

GET /api/users/AllUsers?fmt=choices&limit=16&start=0

But that seems impossible by design because each combo box has its individual “static” URL. An application developer might theoretically define something like this:

def assigned_to_choices(self, ...):
    if ...:
        return contacts.Company.objects.all()
        return contacts.Person.objects.all()

I have been thinking whether we must remove the possibility of having models with an alphanumeric primary key. Does a RESTful API support alphanumerical primary keys?

Accounting with Così

I optimized the columns layout of lino_xl.lib.ledger.Accounts.

I added a journal group “Miscellaneous transactions” to the default configuration (lino_xl.lib.ledger.JournalGroups).

Server provider versus maintainer

I worked in the “actors” section of the community guide. OMG! Trying to formulate everything in water-proof language is such a huge task! Can’t we just find some existing software house who does these things well and who pays Tonis, Hamza and me and asks money from our customers? Of course in a way which satisfies all current customers.