Forgot your password?
New user?
Document Actions
#3: Manage issue schemata
- Contents
Allow tracker manager to define custom fields (attributes) for issues.
- Proposed by
- Lukas Zdych
- Seconded by
- Martin Aspeli
- Proposal type
- Architecture
- Assigned to release
- State
- rejected
Motivation
Everyone has different ideas of how an issue tracker should work. Rather than adding a million options to Poi, let site administrators define their own custom fields.
Proposal
Add optional ATSchemaEditorNG support:
- Add new parent classes to content-types from ATSENG (SchemaEditor -> PoiTracker and ParentManagedSchema -> PoiIssue) and other changes in code for example initializing of Schema editor support and registration of managed portal types.
- Most of the existing issue fields should be non-managed - the core functionality should be generic enough to fit most use cases that Poi aims to address. Editing these would likely cause breakage anyway.
- Tracker owner should be able to set up new issue fields. These would be displayed in a table on the issue view, e.g. in the current issue info table floating top right.
- All of this must be optional. Poi should still work wihout ATSENG installed!
Risks
- ATSchemaEdtorNG may introduce a performance overhead
I think you're right
Posted by
Martin Aspeli
at
December 22, 2005 - 22:11
Having chatted to limi a bit today, I'm starting to get this feeling myself. ATSENG may indeed be an option for a different Issue type, and I'd like to make it easier to use alternate issue types with Poi. But having ATSENG in the core seems like it'll be a maintenance nightmare.
It depends on way you want to go
Posted by
Lukas Zdych
at
December 22, 2005 - 22:23
ATSENG is very nice solution for projects which are dedicated to the end-users in general I think.. where you want to eliminate programming needs (when customizing) as much as you can... Other way is to keep Poi being Poi but make it open for extending by other programmers exactly to their needs. I think that the second way is what you are going on. I vote to reject this proposal.. what do you think Martin? ;)
Indeed
Posted by
Martin Aspeli
at
December 23, 2005 - 12:59
I think we should have an optional Poi issue type that has ATSENG support, in parallel with other configurations. I'm rolling this into PLIP #8.
Maybe this is not the right way?
As I red in roadmap #8: Decouple issue/response implementation from tracker, I'm not sure if the both proposals aren't a little bit about the same issue but about different way how to resolve it (ATSE vs. Z3/Five)..