Sign up Sign in Samples Blog contact support
update includer timestamps when includee edited

Ticket

 

 

+solution

When A+B is edited, bump the updated date of A, if A+B is included anywhere in A in the references table. (So that A appears in Recent Changes.)

May have unintended consequences, so please code reversibly.

 

+example

Feature: Update Includer cards
  In order for Notifications to be more user friendly
  Users should be notified when transcluded plus cards of a card they are watching change.

  Background:
    Given I log in as Joe User
    And I create Cardtype card "Book" with content ""
    And I create Book card "Ulysses" with content "by , design by "
    And Joe Camel is watching "Ulysses"
    And Joe Admin is watching "Book"
 
  Scenario: Watcher should be notified of updates to transcluded plus card
    When I create card "Ulysses+author" with content "James Joyce"
    Then Joe Camel should be notified that "Joe User updated "Ulysses""
    And Joe Admin should be notified that "Joe User updated "Ulysses""
    When I edit "Ulysses+author" setting content to "Jim"
    Then Joe Camel should be notified that "Joe User updated "Ulysses""
    And Joe Admin should be notified that "Joe User updated "Ulysses""
    
  Scenario: Should not notify of transcluded but not plussed card
    When I create card "illustrator" with content "Picasso"
    Then No notification should be sent                                     
    
  Scenario: Should not notify of plussed but not transcluded card
    When I create card "Ulysses+random" with content "boo"
    Then No notification should be sent

  Scenario: Templated cards should only send one email when added or updated
    Given I create card "Book+*tform" with content "by , design by "
    When I create Book card "Bros Krmzv" with plusses:
      |author|illustrator|
      |Dostoyevsky|Delacroix|      
    Then Joe Admin should be notified that "Joe User added "Bros Krmzv""
    When I edit "Bros Krmzv" with plusses:
      |author|illustrator|
      |Rumi|Monet|
    Then Joe Admin should be notified that "Joe User updated "Bros Krmzv""

  Scenario: Watching a plus card on multiedit; and watching both plus card and including card on multiedit
    Given I create Cardtype card "Fruit"
    And I create card "Fruit+*tform" with content " "
    And I create Fruit card "Banana" with plusses:
      |color|flavor|
      |yellow|sweet|
    And Joe Camel is watching "Banana+color"
    When I edit "Banana" with plusses:
      |color|flavor|
      |spotted|mushy|
    Then Joe Camel should be notified that "Joe User edited "Banana+color""    
    When Joe Camel is watching "Banana"
    And I edit "Banana" with plusses:
      |color|flavor|
      |spotted|mushy|
    Then Joe Camel should be notified that "Joe User updated "Banana""
    
  Scenario: Watching a plus card & including card on regular edit
    When I create card "Ulysses+author" with content "Joyce"
    Then Joe Camel should be notified that "Joe User updated "Ulysses""
    When Joe Camel is watching "Ulysses+author"
    And I edit "Ulysses+author" setting content to "Jim"
    Then Joe Camel should be notified that "Joe User updated "Ulysses""
      

 

+discussion

my first reaction is that this should probably only affect relative inclusions...  Otherwise we might really drown recent changes with edits to a  commonly transcluded card.


how do we know if an inclusion is relative? it would need to be recorded in the reference. (currently is not)

  --Lewis Hoffman.....Fri Jul 10 11:12:52 -0700 2009


convo w/ Ethan, we can do just cards included by trunk. this will be the same as relative in most cases but doesn't require new tracking. FTW!

  --Lewis Hoffman.....Tue Jul 28 09:42:23 -0700 2009


 


This is done for notifications. Bailing on recent changes for now.

  --Lewis Hoffman.....Tue Aug 04 12:50:32 -0700 2009


Cool, it works!

 

At least one issue with it -- the email tells me who last changed the including card and its last-changed date, rather than that giving info for the included card that actually changed.

  --John Abbe.....Wed Aug 05 08:10:40 -0700 2009


And, should i ticket doing this for RC? And is the intent then to bump the date as described in +solution, or...?

  --John Abbe.....Wed Aug 05 08:10:55 -0700 2009


For multi-edit, suggest changing:

This update included the following changes: edited defusion+visuals edited defusion+list

 

To:

This update included the following changes:

edited defusion+visuals

edited defusion+list

 

  --John Abbe.....Wed Aug 05 08:17:29 -0700 2009


(Note to self: Make sure to check references to this card when splitting the ticket; most probably refer to Recent Changes.)

  --John Abbe.....Fri Aug 21 13:27:02 -0700 2009


is the email still giving incorrect info? If so we should make a ticket for that.

 

As for the RC, I think this is difficult enough that we'll probably only get to it when there is a charge for seriously cleaning up search results. not sure it's worth ticketing until then.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....Mon Oct 18 16:00:11 -0700 2010


Emails have the new format suggested here, but are still giving the wrong editor. (The date was removed, which is fine.)

 

Would like to add a note about RC somewhere, but not clear enough about what you mean by "seriously cleaning up search results" to now if there's a likely ticket or idea on Search+tickets for item or WQL+tickets for item

  --John Abbe.....Sun Feb 13 23:26:11 -0800 2011


Er, my tagging assumed that the "in progress" meant this was targetted for 1.11?

  --John Abbe.....2013-03-21 23:53:21 +0000


nah, I think this has been "in progress" since 2009. resetting.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-22 03:14:43 +0000


Note, we do want certain plus cards to show up in recent in some cases (eg analysis cards on wikirate.org)

--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-04-10 17:23:08 +0000

This should really be "field descendants", not includers.

--Ethan McCutchen.....2014-08-17 03:10:57 +0000