Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 8, 2017. It is now read-only.

Admin page additions #28

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Jan 14, 2016
Merged

Admin page additions #28

merged 10 commits into from
Jan 14, 2016

Conversation

stvnrlly
Copy link
Member

@stvnrlly stvnrlly commented Jan 5, 2016

This makes the following changes:

  • Change the title of the Opportunites addition page from "Add opportunity" to "Add Procurement"
  • Change price_min and price_max to dollar_value_min and dollar_value_max, along with an include_options field
  • Add a dropdown menu for the fiscal year, showing the current year and next 4
  • Add a dropdown menu for the fiscal quarter, with options for 4 quarters and "TBD"
  • (Re)create a management function—./manage.py load_opportunites—to populate historical data on offices, opportunities, and advisors, which allows future use of that office data, as well
  • Add the ability to search by opportunity ID.

@codecov-io
Copy link

Current coverage is 91.74%

Merging #28 into develop will decrease coverage by -1.38% as of 6917eef

@@            develop     #28   diff @@
=======================================
  Files             8       9     +1
  Stmts           189     339   +150
  Branches          5      17    +12
  Methods           0       0       
=======================================
+ Hit             176     311   +135
- Partial           0       3     +3
- Missed           13      25    +12

Review entire Coverage Diff as of 6917eef

Powered by Codecov. Updated on successful CI builds.

add migration for fiscal years
@stvnrlly
Copy link
Member Author

stvnrlly commented Jan 8, 2016

OK, I think this is ready to review for merge.

@vdavez
Copy link
Contributor

vdavez commented Jan 13, 2016

It seems like we could use additional test coverage around the load_opportunities command to ensure the right number of opportunities are loaded.

#

@staticmethod
def parse_date(s):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that, in a prior review, we thought this could be replaced with strftime.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the benefit of that. The model currently uses Django's DateField for the estimated solicitation date, which takes a datetime.date as an input. Do we want to change that field to a string?

@vdavez
Copy link
Contributor

vdavez commented Jan 14, 2016

👍

vdavez added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2016
@vdavez vdavez merged commit 4e1bd65 into develop Jan 14, 2016
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants