Home Recent
Request an Account Sign in
Page

 

It can be daunting to jump in and start developing code for a big project like Wagn, so we're keeping a running list of good ways to get your feet wet.

 

We've divided them into two groups -- (1) ways you can jump in and write a good chunk of helpful code without having to learn much about Wagn's innards, and (2) smaller issues involving minor code fixes that will pull you deeper in.

 

Of course, if you're looking for more of a challenge, we can provide!

 

 

More Code / Less Deep

  1. Installation Scripts — Getting Wagn working is still a bit of a hassle. Many of the gem installations could be scripted, and core configuration options could be prompted.
  2. Quick Install -- We'd love to offer a simple installation with SQLite that users can get going in just a few clicks.
  3. Integration -- There are lots of opportunities to start building things that use Wagn's api. A Facebook app, a Ubiquity script, etc. We'd love to see what you can come up with.

 

Deeper In / Less Code

  1. Image Edit Mode — We want to be able to see current images while we edit them. This is an easy one — amounts to adding an image tag — but offers a chance to dig into our cardtype structure.
  2. No links in Table of Contents — A shallow bug that will be fun for folks who like playing with regular expressions.
  3. Handle Name Collisions Better — Right now if you try to card with an existing name, it fails and gives you an error that says that card already exists. But there's no way to see the card.
  4. Escaping Syntax — We want to be able to use backslashes (\) to escape square ([) and curly (}) brackets, used in link and inclusion syntax respectively. The links should be fairly straightforward; the inclusions will be a bit trickier.
  5. Database Compatibility -- We think things are going pretty smoothly in MySql and Postgres, but we haven't tested SQLite enough for confidence, and we'd love help testing in all of them
  6. Firefox spell-check — Frankly, I don't know what turns this off. Maybe this isn't really "deeper in"??