Allow file fields in question groups #1934
Conversation
|
FYI @seav I got an error when trying to upload a questionnaire with images inside of the location attributes... I havent look at it in detail because im tired and its late. Let me know if you know what this could be! |
|
Hm. When I load that questionnaire on staging it tells me: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code changes look OK to me.
However, testing using ODK, when resource questionnaire items are placed in groups, the resource files are not attached to the models they are named after. This is really weird because I can't find anything in the code that would cause this behavior.
@MappingKat: Staging still does not have this PR. So resource files inside groups are not yet supported on staging. |
|
I added a commit to fix the bug that I detected. Basically, I was able to confirm that this fix works using ODK. I also checked that resource attachment still works for resource questionnaire items outside of groups. Edit: I've replaced a now-obsolete unit test with another unit test that tests for the bug and the bugfix. |
seav
force-pushed
the
flexible-resources
branch
from
ffc1f82
to
095bb97
Compare
cadasta/questionnaires/managers.py
Outdated
| @@ -106,6 +106,13 @@ def create_attrs_schema(project, question_group_dict, attr_type_ids, | |||
| field = {} | |||
| field['name'] = child.get('name') | |||
| field['long_name'] = child.get('label') | |||
|
|
|||
| field['name'] = child.get('name') | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a repeat of line 107.
Proposed changes in this pull request
The PR addresses the need to define resource fields (images, videos) inside question groups for locations, relationships and parties.
Changes added include:
questionnaires.managers.create_attrs_schemawhen creatingAttributeinstances. Resources are not part of attribute schemas and should be omitted. We identify resource files using the field-name pattern required to specify resources; i.e.{model_type}_resource.ModelHelper. _get_attributes(LL429-432)ModelHelper. _get_resource_names(LL464-467), we're drilling down into the attribute groups, identify resources using the same pattern described before and attach them to the list of resources.When should this PR be merged
If possible with 1.15.0 as this will make running one of Katrina's projects easier. This should be tested using GeoODK the form that is used in the project.
Risks
Low.
Follow-up actions
None.
Checklist (for reviewing)
General
Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
Is the PR labeled correctly? It should have the
migrationlabel if a new migration is added.Is the risk level assessment sufficient? The risks section should contain all risks that might be introduced with the PR and which actions we need to take to mitigate these risks. Possible risks are database migrations, new libraries that need to be installed or changes to deployment scripts.
Functionality
Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.
Code
Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.
Is the code documented sufficiently? Large and complex classes, functions or methods must be annotated with comments following our code-style guidelines.
Has the scalability of this change been evaluated?
Is there a maintenance plan in place?
Tests
Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?
Security
Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
Does all branching logic have a default case?
Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?
Documentation
Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the Cadasta Platform Documentation.
Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the API docs.
Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.