Skip to content
New issue

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

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Research: evaluate suitability of building on top of collective.task #3

Closed
seanupton opened this issue May 14, 2015 · 8 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@seanupton
Copy link
Contributor

Research (unreleased) collective.task package as a possible framework to extend or build on top of. We need to assess:

  • How complete is it now?
  • How does it overlap with our stated requirements? Where does it not?

We likely want to install this in a Plone 4.3 site for testing, evaluation. There should be some discussion of pros/cons of using this. We can always refactor what we are doing toward an aim of future collaboration if necessity dictates.

@seanupton seanupton added this to the Requirements planning milestone May 14, 2015
@aclark4life
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, any other add-ons to research? Or is collective.task the only one worth considering? I see very few:

$ pip search task | grep -i plone       
izug.ticketbox            - A tracker-like task management system for plone.
Products.cron4plone       - cron4plone can do scheduled tasks in Plone
ftw.task                  - A simple task content type for Plone.

But thought I'd ask.

@seanupton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aclark4life only looking seriously at stuff that is Dexterity-based (none of the above), but might make sense to spend a bit of time reviewing them for basic ideas (along with Products.Poi and your own previous task/project add-ons)?

@aclark4life
Copy link
Contributor

Got it, thanks

@seanupton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aclark4life some random notes:

  • We might want to inquire upstream with collective.task author(s) about supporting more than one assigned principal/party? AFAICT, does this only supports single-party assignment? This might be YAGNI in most cases, but ideally we would have a way to support more than one assigned party in some small minority of situations.
    • Not sure if LocalRoleMasterSelectField supports the dependent field being a Set-of-Choice, though?
  • Currently, collective.task uses Date, not Datetime for due_date. Ideally this would be a datetime (e.g. "Your forms are due at 5 p.m. the first Friday of each month")?
    • I also recognize this presents issues of dealing with timezone, which I have some thoughts about (handling similarly to plone.app.event).
  • In Plone 4.3.4+ (plone.autoform 1.6.1+) it is possible for multiple behaviors to add to the same fieldset; if we add another behavior for additional fields to supplement what is in collective.task.behaviors.ITaskWithFieldset, we should add to the 'task' fieldset it already defines.
    • I am assuming we will have some kind of additional behavior interface, perhaps called something like "ITaskRules".
  • Schema misc:
    • Presumed that our tasks have optional start, end (datetime) fields.
    • Fields for calculated due date+time (relative to start/end in either hours or days).
    • Fields for calculated notification date+time (relative to due date, in either hours or days).
      • Unsure if we should support multiple notification times (e.g. using collective.z3cform.datagridfield where multiple rows of notification rules can be added).

@aclark4life
Copy link
Contributor

@seanupton Re: multi-principal, do groups count i.e. one or more users who are members of a group. Or do you want "true" multi-principal support e.g. one or more users, one or more groups?

@aclark4life
Copy link
Contributor

Opened collective/collective.task#2

@seanupton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aclark4life wondering about maybe just supporting singular assignment with the possibility of grafting on a "Cc" field at later date.

The other concern re: c.task was mostly that due date was date, not datetime (my sense is that this would be easier to work around).

@aclark4life
Copy link
Contributor

Punt

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants