Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BOFS missing from the agenda's session selection widget #784

Closed
ietf-svn-bot opened this issue Mar 1, 2012 · 16 comments
Closed

BOFS missing from the agenda's session selection widget #784

ietf-svn-bot opened this issue Mar 1, 2012 · 16 comments

Comments

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link

owner:olau@iola.dk resolution_fixed type_defect | by rjsparks@nostrum.com


The calendar graphic at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/agenda.html#GEN
shows the GEN bofs, but the columns above the calendar that let you select
which sessions you want to attend does not list those bofs.

This is true for BOFs in general, not just GEN. INSIPID does not show in the list for RAI, weirds does not show in the list for apps, etc.


Issue migrated from trac:784 at 2022-03-04 01:59:52 +0000

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@olau@iola.dk changed owner from `` to olau@iola.dk

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@olau@iola.dk commented


Yeah, the model has changed slightly regarding state versus type so the querysets doesn't return the right set of groups. My first try at fixing it didn't work, I'll have to dig deeper into this Monday.

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@olau@iola.dk changed status from new to closed

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@olau@iola.dk changed resolution from `` to fixed

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@olau@iola.dk commented


Fixed in 09281df.

Improve IETFWG proxy to take "bof" groups into account when querying for active groups and map "bof" to IETFWG.ACTIVE. Fixes #784.

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed status from closed to reopened

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed resolution from fixed to ``

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com commented


Reopening this, as I think this solution will result in WG pages for the bofs, with no annotation
about this being a proposed WG. I patched the running tracker earlier today with the following
code in order to avoid 500 pages for /wg//; I think this is more correct than the fix in
09281df, but if we use this, then probably some changes is needed in order to close this issue,
by showing 'proposed' wg's in the agenda display. Here's the patch I did to ietf/group/proxy.py:

@@ -133,7 +133,11 @@
     #status = models.ForeignKey(WGStatus)
     @property
     def status_id(self):
-        return { "active": 1, "dormant": 2, "conclude": 3, "proposed": 4 }[self.state_id]
+        return { "active": 1, "dormant": 2, "conclude": 3, "proposed": 4, "bof": 4, }[self.state_id]
     #area_director = models.ForeignKey(AreaDirector, null=True)
     #meeting_scheduled = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=3)

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@olau@iola.dk commented


Good point. Actually, the status_id part isn't necessary for the meeting views since they get the right groups through the queryset which is patched separately. So I've just committed your patch, and I think this should make both cases work.

The reason I changed status_id is because the submit code adds a warning if you submit a draft for a group which is not status_id == IETFWG.ACTIVE, and I guess posting drafts for BOFs is not something that requires a warning? So we probably need to check for state_id in ("active", "bof") there now?

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

ietf-svn-bot commented Mar 6, 2012

@henrik@levkowetz.com commented


Replying to ietf-svn-conversion/datatracker#784 (comment:4):

Good point. Actually, the status_id part isn't necessary for the meeting views since they get the right groups through the queryset which is patched separately. So I've just committed your patch, and I think this should make both cases work.

Not quite (I haven't looked into the details of why, I'm just observing this page at the URL in
the original ticket -- the 'GEN' column above the schedule layout is still empty, but should
actually contain 'antitrust', 'rfcform' and 'rpsreqs', I think.

The reason I changed status_id is because the submit code adds a warning if you submit a draft for a group which is not status_id == IETFWG.ACTIVE, and I guess posting drafts for BOFs is not something that requires a warning? So we probably need to check for state_id in ("active", "bof") there now?

Hm. Posting a draft which is owned by a BOF is never done -- it's all individual drafts at that point,
and posting a -00 thus doesn't need approval. I guess it would be possible to have a different sort of relationship here, 'related-to-group' rather than 'belongs-to-group', but the models can't handle that, and it's not been expressed as something that would be nice to have (although now I've mentioned it, it actually would be nice to have ,,;-) But in general, I don't think it should at present be possible to post a draft and say it belongs to a BOF.

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@olau@iola.dk commented


I think I need to clarify - you still need the queryset part of 09281df, my latest commit only overwrote the status_id part. I have a pristine checked out dev server, and in there I do see those three BOFs (this is with a database dump from yesterday).

Regarding the posting part, I suppose we're fine there too, then, with what is currently committed as you would then get a warning. I think it says you're posting to an inactive group. I don't think you got the warning with the old schema, that's why I asked (but I could be wrong, I didn't actually test it, I was just grepping the code to look for other issues).

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed status from reopened to closed

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed resolution from `` to fixed

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

ietf-svn-bot commented Mar 6, 2012

@henrik@levkowetz.com commented


Replying to ietf-svn-conversion/datatracker#784 (comment:6):

I think I need to clarify - you still need the queryset part of 09281df, my latest commit only overwrote the status_id part. I have a pristine checked out dev server, and in there I do see those three BOFs (this is with a database dump from yesterday).

Ah, Ok. Ok, patch added. Not sure how to resolve that with the repository now, but the functionality
is there and is fine.

Regarding the posting part, I suppose we're fine there too, then, with what is currently committed as you would then get a warning. I think it says you're posting to an inactive group. I don't think you got the warning with the old schema, that's why I asked (but I could be wrong, I didn't actually test it, I was just grepping the code to look for other issues).

Ok, good.

Thanks :-)

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed status from closed to deployed

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed priority from n/a to medium

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 16, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants