Warning: Can't synchronize with repository "(default)" (/home/git/ome.git does not appear to be a Git repository.). Look in the Trac log for more information.

Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of Ticket #11753


Ignore:
Timestamp:
04/02/2014 10:15:11 AM (8 years ago)
Author:
jamoore
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #11753

    • Property Cc python@… added
  • Ticket #11753 – Description

    v2 v3  
    22 
    33The read-write state (`rwrw--`) is available as a server option but has been kept out of the clients due to the complexity that it adds. In order to make the flag available across the board, we will need to: 
    4  * review the client-side API methods (`canEdit()`, `canAnnotate()`, ...) for the various user types (data-owner, group-member, group-owner, admin) 
    5  * review the existing integration tests in Java & Python 
    6  * likely write new integration tests to cover `rwrw--` 
    7  * update the spreadsheet(s) that are being maintained (possibly simplifying them; possibly generating integration tests from them; possibly converting to a more maintainable format) 
     4 
     5 1. review the existing integration tests in Java & Python 
     6    * include specific classes for: images, containers, rendering, annotations, ... 
     7    * effort should be made to reduce variability in class/method naming, etc. 
     8 2. likely write new integration tests to cover `rwrw--` 
     9 3. ensure coverage of client-side API methods (`canEdit()`, `canAnnotate()`, ...) for the various user types (data-owner, group-member, group-owner, admin) 
     10 4. evaluate needed changes to client-side API methods (client devs: Will/J-m/...) 
     11    * Do we need `canInsert()`? 
     12 5. update the spreadsheet(s) that are being maintained (client devs + Petr/Balaji) 
     13    * possibly simplifying them 
     14    * possibly generating integration tests from them 
     15    * possibly converting to a more maintainable format) 
     16    * If this is out of scope, we may want to start by creating a new format just for `rwrw--` and then extend this backwards to `rwra--` etc. 
     17 
     18A primary goal of the above would be to have the following representations/implementations of permissions all coincide **minimally* for `rwrw--`: 
     19 
     20 * client (i.e. user) functions (GUI) 
     21 * client gateway methods 
     22 * client-side API methods (canEdit, etc) 
     23 * low-level permissions object (e.g. `rwrw--`) 
     24 * server-implementation 
     25 * integration tests 
     26 * and finally the "Spreadsheets" (i.e. permissions documentation) 
    827 
    928If possible, no client/server breaking changes should be made so that the work could be backported to the 5.0 series if desired. 

1.3.13-PRO © 2008-2011 Agilo Software all rights reserved (this page was served in: 0.14442 sec.)

We're Hiring!