Our use of 'say $out' is not really consistent, and we need to tidy it for the release.
Created attachment 143834 [details] [review] Bug 32191: Add sample output for copying and pasting to skeleton.pl Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Created attachment 143835 [details] [review] Bug 32191: Tidy upgrade scripts output Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Looking here...
Created attachment 143838 [details] [review] Bug 32191: Add sample output for copying and pasting to skeleton.pl Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io> Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de>
Created attachment 143839 [details] [review] Bug 32191: Tidy upgrade scripts output Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io> Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de>
I <3 consistency!
Pushed to master for 22.11. Nice work everyone, thanks!
Bug 30327 - Add biblionumber to ComponentSortField Added biblionumber option to ComponentSortField Is this needed? What is the added value of the detail part? I am not sure we are not adding confusion. For instance we have: Bug 30392 - Add deleteditems.deleted_on Without the "Added" part, which could mean it hasn't been added(?) Also: Bug 28269 - Add new system preference SearchWithISSNVariations vs Bug 30250 - Add new system preference ApplyFrameworkDefaults Added new system preference 'ApplyFrameworkDefaults' We are lacking consistency. My suggestion would be to: 1. Don't add a detail when there is only 1 thing to tell and it has already been said in the description 2. Don't add the past -ed, which is only useful when we are executing a script and want to provide feedback (here we only want to tell what it done, use infinitive everywhere then) 3. Use the detail page ($out) when there are several things. For instance: Bug 42424: New awesome feature Add new DB column table.column Add new system preference SysPref etc. Note that "Bug 32030 - Add an ERM module" could have a detail part.
Created attachment 143893 [details] update DB output 22.05.00 to 22.06.00.083
Bug 31378 - Add identity_provider and identity_provider_domains configuration tables manage_identity_providers permission added => This is not consistent either. It could be Bug 31378 - OAuth2/OIDC client implementation Add new DB tables identity_provider and identity_provider_domains Add new permission manage_identity_providers
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #9) > Created attachment 143893 [details] > update DB output 22.05.00 to 22.06.00.083 I think that's before I pushed my patch, please try again or check the new attachment. It is pretty consistent to me right now. There might be style opinions, though. I basically renamed the descriptions for the bug descriptions and then put the 'actions' that took place, so the identity providers one really reads: Upgrade to 22.06.00.081 [18:54:12]: Bug 31378 - Add identity_provider and identity_provider_domains configuration tables Added new permission 'manage_identity_providers' Added new table 'identity_providers' Added new table 'identity_provider_domains'
Created attachment 143922 [details] 22.05.00 => 22.06.83 upgrade
ah! I have certainly checked out master before the updatedatabase instead of the branch with this patch. That is way better now, thanks! Sorry for the confusion.
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #11) > (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #9) > > Created attachment 143893 [details] > > update DB output 22.05.00 to 22.06.00.083 > > I think that's before I pushed my patch, please try again or check the new > attachment. It is pretty consistent to me right now. There might be style > opinions, though. I basically renamed the descriptions for the bug > descriptions and then put the 'actions' that took place, so the identity > providers one really reads: > > Upgrade to 22.06.00.081 [18:54:12]: Bug 31378 - Add identity_provider and > identity_provider_domains configuration tables > Added new permission 'manage_identity_providers' > Added new table 'identity_providers' > Added new table 'identity_provider_domains' Should we add this to the wiki? https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Database_updates
Examples updated and added to on the wiki page.
Perhaps a QA script addition?
(In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #16) > Perhaps a QA script addition? We should add it to some taiga board for 23.05. I cannot spend time on that right now.
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #17) > (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #16) > > Perhaps a QA script addition? > > We should add it to some taiga board for 23.05. I cannot spend time on that > right now. We didn't expect you to :) I've filed an issue on gitlab: https://gitlab.com/koha-community/qa-test-tools/-/issues/63
Just to say, I love this consistency improvement.. another little polishing touch that makes Koha look all the more professional :-)