Initial draft of application context

[duncan]

As discussed in #136, an initial draft of an application context with name, version, build, androidFlavor, and buildIsRelease properties.

[alexanderdean]

This was going to be buildFlavor no?

[duncan]

😳 yah. it was. Fixing.

[duncan]

I guess the other thing one could call it that might be slightly more generic would be buildVariant... ?

[alexanderdean]

Oh yah, I like buildVariant.

[alexanderdean]

Coming back to this cold 6 months later, "build" and "buildVariant" feel a bit unintuitive.

[alexanderdean]

Hey @jbeemster - the original genesis for this context was Android apps. Would it be possible to automatically generate this context for an Android app, or would it need to be manually set by the app author? What about for Objective-C?

[jbeemster]

It would need to be setup as a Tracker option but all that information should be available for both Android and Objective-C. I am thinking it might be worthwhile exposing a Context object of sorts which handles all of the various contexts that we have popping up..

[alexanderdean]

Sounds good - can you create tickets for both mobile trackers then @jbeemster ?

[alexanderdean]

From a Java/Scala/Clojure perspective, the obvious field missing is organization aka vendor.

[alexanderdean]

Consider grouping the build fields into a nested sub-object

[TiernanKennedy]

Spec looks good to me @alexanderdean.

With iOS we always have a build number, so requiring that would be fine.

I'm not sure why buildVariant is needed, given that we have the mobile_context?

[alexanderdean]

Thanks @TiernanKennedy. I think buildVariant is an Android thing?

[TiernanKennedy]

Hmm, should there be OS specific stuff in here? Part of me thinks there should just be the addition of build and version in the mobile context. Is there a reason to keep them separate? @alexanderdean

[alexanderdean]

The mobile context is intended to describe the mobile device which is hosting the app; the application context is intended to describe the app which is running the tracker - so application build and version details belong in the application context. We could potentially rename buildVariant to something less Android-flavoured...

[alexanderdean]

Related: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30223676/adding-a-build-variant-and-running-it-on-ios-8

[TiernanKennedy]

Ah I see what you mean now. Yeah then buildVariant does make sense.

👍

[alexanderdean]

We're missing the application license as well...

[alexanderdean]

Should we add sourceRepository, sourceTag and sourceCommit too?

[bogaert]

We're missing the application license as well...
Should we add sourceRepository, sourceTag and sourceCommit too?

I don't think we need either for a first release of the schema.

[snowplowcla]

@duncan has signed the Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement

[alexanderdean]

I'm not sure what I meant by application license.

Should we add sourceRepository, sourceTag and sourceCommit too?

I don't think we need either for a first release of the schema.

Because of Redshift blocked schemas, the first release will be the only release for the foreseeable future.

[chuwy]

Pushing back to R97. @keanerobinson please let us know what do you think of it when you're back.

[chuwy]

Closing in favor of #847