Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GNIP 30 - Split out geonode.maps into 2 modules #273

Closed
sbenthall opened this Issue Jun 5, 2012 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
Contributor

sbenthall commented Jun 5, 2012

http://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/wiki/GNIP-30----Split-out-geonode.maps-into-2-modules

It is proposed to split the geonode.maps module into 2 separate modules: geonode.data (or geonode.layers) to handle all interactions with data itself, and geonode.maps to handle the maps. This reorganization would be used to reorganize each of the new constituent files (models.py, views.py etc) more logically (similar or related methods together) and to add docstrings for all methods in the process.

This change would require a database migration that django-south can't handle and so could involve some pain. On the other hand, it's intended to make things easier on developers.

@ghost ghost assigned jj0hns0n Jun 5, 2012

Contributor

sbenthall commented Jun 5, 2012

Since this is a change intended to make things easier for developers, I think that other developers need to weigh in on it for it to be approved.

Owner

simod commented Jun 5, 2012

I'm +1 on this (by naming layers instead of data). Thanks!

Member

tomkralidis commented Jun 5, 2012

+1

Owner

jj0hns0n commented Jun 5, 2012

Im +1 on this obviously, and yes, I can see the logic in using the
name layers vs data.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Tom Kralidis
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

+1


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#273 (comment)

Contributor

rmarianski commented Jun 5, 2012

+1.

Just out of curiosity, will we be able to provide a migration story outside of south?

Owner

jj0hns0n commented Jun 5, 2012

It takes some effort to use south to actually migrate data. Not sure
if we would want to do this though. This is why I've said it will be
complicated for people to upgrade a site after these changes, but Im
not sure that should prevent us from doing it. Ariel has some nice
management commands to backup and then restore a geonode, and they
could be a better way to do this.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Robert Marianski
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

+1.

Just out of curiosity, will we be able to provide a migration story outside of south?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#273 (comment)

Contributor

rmarianski commented Jun 5, 2012

Good idea. Due to the amount of reorganization that is going on, a backup/restore might be a nice way to tackle all the different model changes at once.

Owner

jj0hns0n commented Oct 14, 2012

Can we just close this since its done. Not sure about migrations, but the actual migration is done.

@jj0hns0n jj0hns0n closed this Oct 30, 2012

allyoucanmap pushed a commit to allyoucanmap/geonode that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2017

allyoucanmap pushed a commit to allyoucanmap/geonode that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2017

Merge pull request #274 from offtherailz/geocoder_fix_notfound
fix #273. Display message when result list is empty
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment