Packs
Packs have been renamed to Mods:
Add ModA Mod, short for both module and modification, is a set of files that extends or modifies Decko's behavior. Decko offers mods in order to:
- meet the needs of projects needing custom functionality
- keep its core codebase light and nimble
- make it easy for site to opt in or out of features as needed
- ease contributors' progression from Editor to Decker to Developer
- lead to lots of integration with other systems
mod: accountmod: ace_editormod: api_keymod: assetsmod: bar_and_boxmod: bootstrapmod: carrierwavemod: collectionmod: commentopen_in_newopen_in_new pagefullscreen modaledit editspace_dashboard advancedmod: contentmod: coremod: datemod: defaultsmod: delayed_jobmod: editmod: emailmod: followmod: formatmod: helpmod: history
Here are the old cards organized around the word "Packs" before it was renamed:
+status+overview
What are packs?
They're basically a way to add capabilities to Wagn without changing the core Wagn code. We want to make it easy for developers to extend Wagn and for Wagneers to make efficient use of these extensions. We also want our solution to be as consistent as possible with the design principles that make Wagn special.
So....they're modules?
Yes, packs are Wagn modules; we use the words as synonyms. "Module" has the benefits and baggage of being a common term. In general, when we're digging deep and really explaining how things work, we use "packs". When we're making a passing reference to someone who doesn't know Wagn well, we use "modules". As we build interface around installing and maintaining packs, we'll be using the term "pack", which sounds much less like Marvin-the-Martian-speak.
+needs
Why is this the centerpiece of Decko 1.0?
We think this is the best route to growing a healthy open-source community, which is one of our key goals. A module system will:
- help keep Wagn's core codebase light and nimble
- enable a lot of other features that many but not all projects want
- mean Wagn can meet the needs of projects for which Wagn is perfect, except this one piece that you want to build in a custom way.
- ease progression from Wagneer to Developer, or at least as far along that spectrum as you might care to go. Right now it's a pretty big leap to go from creating cardtypes to editing the core source code.
- lead to lots of integration with other systems
What does it mean to be the centerpiece?
Basically, as we were looking through all the different things we wanted to do before Wagn 2.0, we looked at each feature and asked: do we really need to have this in place before we do modules? If the answer was yes, we stuck it in the 2.0 plan. In coming emails we'll be introducing and discussing several of those features that we thought/think are necessary, but since modules are the pivot point, let's dig into them first.
Performance
Dependence / Independence
Rating / Review
Testing
John Sechrest wrote:
1) Having a module system is an interesting idea.
2) When looking at the core of the system, you have to pay attention to performance. Many module systems are broken and broken badly for performance.
(Try to load up all of the drupal modules and test them)
3) Modules need to be independent of each other. Adding and removing a module should not break an unrelated module.
4) Having an apps-store/directory, that makes it trivial to install andmanage modules is important.
5) having a way to vet good modules that are "blessed" in some way is worth the energy.
6) You should always be able to run regression tests as things change and validate that modules still work.Ethan McCutchen summarized:
True modularity (see #3 and #4) implies that code and functionality are strongly independent. I just want to throw out the other option of tracked dependency, where modules can depend on other modules but must somehow indicate that dependency. Either way, insuring conformity to either principle will require...
Rating / Review (see #2, #5, and #6) how and when to bless or forbid modules -- or at least to track things like performance, robustness, and (in)dependence transparently -- seems like a great discussion for this group. What resources do we have for this? How can we build more? How can we make it easy to find the best and most trustworthy modules? And how much of that can we automate....
Testing (see #2 and #6) has become very central to Wagn's development process, and it probably ought to be central to our module plans. Do we only accept modules with tests built in? How and when do we run the tests? If we have 2000 modules do we still test them all before each code update? each release? each major release?Eric Harris-Braun said:
Make sure to consider the workflow of a developer developing a module. So for example, if I have a github fork of wagn, and a fork of somebody's module, I want as little hassle as possible putting these forks together for my particular app, and still be able to contribute back any changes easily to the source project.
James Thompson said:
I'd suggest:Don't use modules for small features, make them part of the base and make them options in the configuration.Design the module API so thatit can be extended without breaking old modulesit is independent of internal WAGN data structuresit includes a an interface for automated testing and benchmarkingInclude popular modules everyone uses in the base distributionMake module installation easyIt there are more than a handful of modules, its not feasible to test all combinations of modules.I'd suggest that the WAGN installation process includea test step that tests the local install including what ever modules are installed. Thiswill validate that the installed WAGN and that any selected modules are working as intended.The Perl module install system includes a similar install test step.It would be nice to include an easy benchmark test as part of the WAGNdistribution. Perhaps it should even be a required part of install tests. This would make iteasier to gague the impact of changes and encourage authors tothing about performance more. As John noted, many CMS systems haveserious performance problems as the usage ramps up.Having Performance numbers on the WAGN feature list would be good too.For example, it would be nice to say something like this in the feature list:Running WAGN on ... hardware/software configuration, using thestandard WAGN benchmark test, WAGN supports 40 card retreivals/second.This would also make it very easy to gague the performance inpactof a new release.Gerry Gleason said:I'm starting to think about a list of threshold points that could help
out with all of this:
1) Dependency checking and mapping. I may finally remember next time
that "has_attachment" being undefined means that I forgot the "git
submodules update --init" and I won't have to go back to wagn.org to
remind me of the exact command. Similarly, if some gems are missing,
you can't even get "rake gems:install" to fire up, and it gives a really
cryptic message. Ideally, even these functions could be modules added
and tweaked by contributors, and in fact I would expect this would be a
hot area for outside pull requests since this is where you will have
many eyeballs of many admins with distinct configurations and potential
issues.
2) MVC separation. From being in the code to add controller and view
features for XML, I can say that this separation isn't very good right
now. The slot based card controller is highly connected both to the all
the rendering modes it needs as well as the card content encoding. If
you clearly define the contents (API wise) of these interfaces with both
tests and docs, it can go a long way to helping contributors create high
quality plugins that don't interact in strange ways.
3) Mapping of what is in the core and what is replaceable/modifyable.
My suspicion is that the plans for patterns will go a long way on this.
Instead of having permissions, user extensions and templates all
overloaded onto the card models, they will be more like internal
plugins, and "outside the core" in a sense.Talking to Michael about this on the phone yesterday has prompted me a
little bit more into action and inquiry on this. He reminded me about
rack, and the necessity to use the best standards and strategies from
your language community. That is why we are all here with ruby and
rails in the first place. The MVC pattern already tells us a lot about
how we should break up the modules, and therefore there is a lot that is
already right with the structure of Wagn.
What we want to do is strip down Wagn to its core and move functions out
of the core into the appropriate place in the stack. We also see rack
emerging as a standard way to modularize certain functions and
features. For example by moving authentication and groups into rack
middleware, they can be shared by multiple applications and make things
like single sign on easy, and even go further so that Wagn cards can be
mixed up with FlowPlace and MetaCurrency features, all sharing the same
application spaces, being able to use each others models, views and
controllers.
Looking at warden for the auth layer: http://wiki.github.com/hassox/warden
- Marcus Estes asked: "When do you imagine that the first undocumented glimmers of a module system might be in place? It seems that security would be an issue in your multi-tenant environment." (By multi-tenant he means that all the different wagns we host are using the same copy of Wagn code.)
My best guess is that in the first quarter of 2010 a few bare-bones pieces of the module system will start taking shape, but that at this point you would mostly interact with the module system by editing card content, not by uploading files, which could help address a lot of the security concerns. Our current schedule (and everybody here knows what can happen to schedules of open source projects) has us launching the module system in full force in Q3 next year. None of this really answers on a deep level how we'll address all the security concerns involved in the long term, but we'll dig a little further into that as we get deeper into this discussion.
Ajax sidebar module user storyupdating batches of cards at once
Kinds of modules
It's helpful in this to consider some specific modules people might develop, and what kinds of things people might want to do in modules generally. Even better to flesh them out as User Story and tag them "Packs".
- A module enabling adding custom tabs (at the top level, not just in the Related tab) -- now this will add/modify the cascading menus on the 'gear' icon. Includes full customization of the theme/UI or the gear. This is both changing the look/feel and changing the contents of these controls.
- A module exposing content from an external database or web service in Wagn cards. (Note that databases with a web API can already be accessed via HTML cards, and even if you want to massage the HTML they return, you can do that via Ruby or Script cards.). For example, Meta-currency flows associated with some or all cards.
- Adding cardtypes:
- an improved Image cardtype which expose Image cards metadata from their files, such as +*make and +*model of the camera that took a photo.
- a Contacts cardtype (possibly involving several cardtypes) managing relationships among people, organizations, addresses, phone numbers, etc., possibly integration with LDAP and other systems, etc.
- Table cardtype
- The Cardtype and/or *right sets used to access external data as above.
- Adding views:
- display a Pointer or Search (of Numbers) as a bar chart
- (add more)
Keep in mind that this initial API is not aimed at making all of these easy, and obviously many of them will involve non-blessed methods.
+solution
Our architecture needs to focus on three primary Wagn "participant types". Open to see a list of what they need from the architecture.
- simplicity in finding and evaluating/screening modules
- simple installation, generally without interacting directly with the filesystem.
- simple removal of modules
- automated handling of dependencies
- good starting points -- bare bones not too bare
- manageable amounts of modules to install
- access to good help if/when any of the above comes up short
- Create simplified deployment packages for "non-admin" installs
- Create complex deployment architectures for specialized application
- Manage change in each class of deployment
- Manage change from networks of developers (internal and external)
- Create releases, Bagns
- Create distributed architectures to support development, testing and collaboration across multiple wagn spaces.
- Add support for other information sources important to my organization
- Manage Wagn resources (storage, memory/cpu, network)
- small chunks, easy to get your head around
- simple, clear api
- possibility to add value without tons of work
- access to feedback
- minimal barriers to entry
Clearly there is potential for conflicting needs. Developers want lots of "small parts", Wagneers want a few, intuitive big ones. The architecture below is aimed at addressing both:
Core
The core is basically what you have when you have no packs. Gems are modular in that rails apps can choose to use them or not. Packs are modular in that wagns can choose to use them or not. Note that with no packs there are no views, so although you could do basic data operations with the Wagn core, you couldn't load a web page. Presumably the first failure with a standard GET request would be that the renderer would look for a "show" view and fail to find it.
Names / Cards
Every module must have a card, and a unique name on that wagn. (Though it need not be universally unique). If the existing name is in use, it should be renameable on install. Note: this is not yet the case; needs design. It may be that this is not in place until the namespaces are.
Trees / Dependence
We must have a way to track what other modules any given module depends upon. Installing the module should automatically prompt installation of its dependents. With this representation, any modules representation can be tested by installing on a core wagn. If it doesn't work, something's missing.
These trees are key to meeting the needs of Wagneers and Developers simultaneously. If our modules interface helps Wagneers to find modules on the basis of high-level functionality, and the installation handles all the lower level stuff, then we've met the "big parts" need via well-assembled "small parts".
Conflicts
Conflicts should be kept to a minimum by banning direct reference to card names in any module, but ultimately they are unavoidable. Like dependencies, however, they should be trackable and identified at point of installation.
Bundles
James said (of the nuisances of MediaWiki's modules):
As a result of these problems bundle releases have sprung up that include a set of modules already installedI actually think a key part of the solution may be embracing something like bundles/distros from the start.
People installing Wagns will have very different needs / expectations. Some might mostly want it for traditional wiki functions, others for blogging, and others for more specialized wagn functions that may have been created for, say, energy audits or investment research or bug tracking or whatever else. It would be nice to offer bundles to help these folks.
Separating dependency from defaults
Defaults need to be robust and low-hassle (for wagneers). These are the kinds of considerations James has been highlighting. New installations (bags) will clearly need to have lots of "important", maybe even "vital" modules -- the kinds of things nobody would enjoy interacting with Wagn without, but they won't be "core" in the sense that they're not the root of the dependency tree.
Module dependency needs to be clean and explicit (for developers). This is an architectural / design decision we'll need to make: can the core depend on modules?
Wagn actually already has some infrastructure for reference tracking, and I'm thinking we should piggy back on and refine that (core) structure for tracking dependence references, which will be much cleaner and more complete if it goes all the way down to the bare no-modules core. (A module with no references to other modules must function and pass all tests with nothing but the bare core). There's a cool way in which modules as cards and dependencies as references means our data referential integrity and our modular dependency tree become integrated systems. Dig the wagniness there!
I'm not sure I understand why modules need a card. Maybe for the "wagneered" part of it, but you have to leave cardnaming up to that app designer then, don't you? If they have a card, what is the cardtype?
--Gerry Gleason.....Fri Oct 16 03:57:58 -0700 2009
I want modules to be a card for references/dependency tracking, revision history, linkability, etc. And that's how I see WADL as requiring a module -- add the module card to the list. I want it for standardizing module interface -- we'll want ways to turn them on and off. I've mostly assumed there would be a Module cardtype (which could plausibly inherit from Cardtype?)
--Ethan McCutchen.....Fri Oct 16 10:10:15 -0700 2009
Sorry, I'm trying to focus on what needs core and ruby module support. I agree that would be good, but I don't think that is part of the core. There needs to be some interface from the user/admin level stuff and how it loads modules and such, but we cannot even count on the services to automatically load dependencies will be available on any given system. We could still support rake tasks pretty easily, and cards could even be fetched to tell the rake tasks what the dependency parts would be. But the point is we want to split this feature into the parts that can be wagneered and the parts that are needed to support the system/code changes in typical admin contexts.
--Gerry Gleason.....Fri Oct 16 15:08:45 -0700 2009
In fact, you can start wagneering some of it to find out what you might want automation and code support for.
--Gerry Gleason.....Fri Oct 16 15:10:28 -0700 2009
Is there a reason these things always go in the root of the namespace? I mean, why not have System+ or maybe *system+, or *modules+ . Is there a wagn principle that argues against such practices?
--Gerry Gleason.....Fri Oct 16 15:13:31 -0700 2009
what do you mean by "these things"? Nothing inherently awful about Systems+. Could also do naming conventions. Some qualifiers:
1. Let's say I have a module called "Mapman" that plugs into some mapping software. If I name it System+mapman, that will automatically create a MapMan card. So it's messier, and it ties up the root anyway. System+ is not really a new namespace.
2. Plus cards can't be tags. So things like *options, for example, need to be simple (nonplus) cards.
--Ethan McCutchen.....Mon Oct 19 16:26:44 -0700 2009
Why does the tag card have to exist. I don't see how it is actually related to the plus card. It really only has a contextual meaning in the context of a '+' The '+' operator is not commutative, I see why the trunk needs to exist, but not the tag. Doesn't mean you can use it, but if it is an empty card, I don't think you should create it.
--Gerry Gleason.....Mon Oct 19 18:22:45 -0700 2009
OK. Some interesting stuff in here. My approach is to learn more about what the architecture reveals to the "central participant type" - the Wagnerian Operator which seems to have been sort of skipped over in this discourse. I intuit that the relationship between naming conventions and namespaces become obvious and intuitive so that the Humans can meet the code not half-way but closer to it. I hope to find a way to get my "hand" in play here.
--~~~~
--cquin.....Mon Mar 07 11:36:49 -0800 2011
Did we just replace 'bags' with 'packs' in vocabulary? Should probably edit above to fix that if we have.
I think I understood that, Charley. Operations concerns are not completely invisible. My professional work has been a lot more about deploying that developing, and as you know I host some Wagns. This is very much a now and future concern. Most wagns are now deployed by wagn.org, but things are in the works that may change that a lot, and operations will be a much bigger part of the development roadmap.
--Gerry Gleason.....Sat Mar 12 03:59:08 -0800 2011
Blessed vs. Possible
The initial API release will be somewhat limited in scope, because many aspects of Wagn's architecture are still evolving rapidly. When we "bless" a piece of our API, it means that we're not going to change it without lots of fanfare and early warnings.That doesn't mean we'll prevent you from using unblessed API; it means we're not going to break our backs to support anything unblessed. So if you use unblessed code, we celebrate your bravery, but know that future releases may break your modules without much warning or apology.
Packs+API+best practices
An area to record helpful habits for private modules as well as conventions to facilitate adoption and compatibility of public modules.
We need more examples of what this might be, for example use of * in rightnames. In general managing the Wagn namespace, etc. What else is in here that we have already identified?
Original intro:
A ton of this vocabulary is still in flux, even at the highest level. Are these Extensions? Modules? Are they all Modules but Extensions are ones that are not part of the core? What's our terminology for distinguishing between mini-applications built solely with cards vs. those that involve code?
...and nobody is commited to that "WEAPI" term.
I'm happy to bring more folks into those discussions if interested, but I don't really want to have them here. For present purposes, I'm using Modules and Extensions pretty much interchangeably, and I'm specifically talking about extending wagn's capabilities through code.
With the implementation of this blueprint comes a bunch of things that we want to have clear vocabulary, which may include changing the meaning of terms that were already in use. None of this is fully settled yet.
0. Group of cards (exchanged between/among Wagns
Hand
1. Any chunk of code (and cards) generated that use the functionality implemented from this Blueprint.
just the code
Proposed: Module
Related terms — private |whatever| for code you develop for use on a Wagn you're hosting, and public |whatever| for code you develop with the idea that others might use them, and which may be distributed via wagn.org
2. Any such code components that are built in to new Wagn installs by default (and without which Wagn may not even function).
Proposed: Core module
√3. Any such code and card content that are not built into new Wagns by default.
Code, cards and
Proposed: Add-on, app, pack,
could be module, vendor or gem
4. The "extra" functionality & data already connected to some groups of cards (specifically: Cardtypes, Roles, cards with accounts, Files, and Images). These will be implemented in the way described in this Blueprint eventually, but will most likely be around for at least some time after this Blueprint is implemented.
Currently: Extension
May be helpful to look at this list of different kinds of chunks that might get developed:
Kinds of modules
It's helpful in this to consider some specific modules people might develop, and what kinds of things people might want to do in modules generally. Even better to flesh them out as User Story and tag them "Packs".
- A module enabling adding custom tabs (at the top level, not just in the Related tab) -- now this will add/modify the cascading menus on the 'gear' icon. Includes full customization of the theme/UI or the gear. This is both changing the look/feel and changing the contents of these controls.
- A module exposing content from an external database or web service in Wagn cards. (Note that databases with a web API can already be accessed via HTML cards, and even if you want to massage the HTML they return, you can do that via Ruby or Script cards.). For example, Meta-currency flows associated with some or all cards.
- Adding cardtypes:
- an improved Image cardtype which expose Image cards metadata from their files, such as +*make and +*model of the camera that took a photo.
- a Contacts cardtype (possibly involving several cardtypes) managing relationships among people, organizations, addresses, phone numbers, etc., possibly integration with LDAP and other systems, etc.
- Table cardtype
- The Cardtype and/or *right sets used to access external data as above.
- Adding views:
- display a Pointer or Search (of Numbers) as a bar chart
- (add more)
Keep in mind that this initial API is not aimed at making all of these easy, and obviously many of them will involve non-blessed methods.
Thoughts?
Hoping that having a clear vocabulary might make our exploration more accessible to others.
--John Abbe.....Wed Feb 23 08:10:17 -0800 2011
Extension isn't going to be changed that much, the change is really more implementation than functional. We don't really want API users to even learn the current meaning because that will be gone by the time they see the API.
I'm now more confused between "Core Modules" and "??? (new)?. I think what we intend for the former is pretty close to what you have there. It is stuff like Renderers that you need one or more of. RichHtmlRenderer will be like that. Hard to call it a module, though as it isn't clear it can even be swapped out, but in principle it can. For example when we have XML, the XmlRenderer will likely be core. It isn't that Wagn doesn't work without it, and it could even be optional, but it is really deeply embedded in Wagn. The main thing may be release synchronization much as you have with Rails where there are many modules at the same version number, upgraded at the same time.
Card Modules for stuff like: Permissions (probably also Core as are many of these), Roles, Users (and accounts). Here we also expect many user contributed modules as well.
--Gerry Gleason.....Wed Feb 23 09:52:15 -0800 2011
re "Core Modules" and "???" - the former is any module in the core, the latter probably is fuzzy and not useful to distinguish from modules in general. I thought maybe "Card module" for "???" because I was thinking of modules that add custom data to a Cardtype, but accounts (a current extension) obviously breaks that definition. It could be Set module, but yeah, I think it's too broad/fuzzy to be useful, so I'm removing it. Just for reference, it was:
??? (new) — this will be the new term for the added functionality that used to be called an "extension". Existing code will be refactored to use the module architecture. This currently includes extra functionality for account cards and Cardtype cards (which will become "core modules"), and it will now become much easier for developers to add their own (which will be "extensions" in the new sense, unless they are made part of the core Wagn installation).
--John Abbe.....Wed Feb 23 14:06:54 -0800 2011
"Extension" seems to have lost all semantic content here. If you aren't making reference to what feature or component that is being extended, or there is some part of the feature that logically extends the base, then the word is redundant and confusing.
--Gerry Gleason.....Wed Feb 23 14:59:25 -0800 2011
My understanding (which could of course be wrong) is that we'd like to stop using "extension" for the extra stuff now associated with cards-with-accounts, Cardtypes and Roles. To do that, we need a new term for whatever that is, which will only be in use until we implement that functionality with modules. After that we'll instead talk about the cards-with-accounts Module, Cardtype Module, and Role Module.
The reason for this shift is so that we can start using the word "extension" for modules that are not part of the core.
--John Abbe.....Wed Feb 23 15:05:13 -0800 2011
More exactly, that implementation feature is going away. It isn't clear how quickly, so there is potential for confusion during the overlap period. I don't like generalizing it in that way, as I think modifiers on Module gets at that better.
In my view, if we keep using that word at all as blessed vocabulary, that it should have a meaning connected to some core feature that is getting extended. What we had would be "Card extensions" and we may have some remnants of that for a while. What I'm saying is that it isn't a noun on its own, it has to modify another noun.
--Gerry Gleason.....Wed Feb 23 15:13:42 -0800 2011
To clarify an idea (not advocate for it), it's possible to thing of "extension" as extending Wagn, not a particular structure or feature.
So one notion was that wagneers would end up rarely using the word "module" but instead always using the word "extension".
Back in the advocacy space, I really think there should be just one word that most Wagneers would encounter for all of this before they venture into actual module development (as in, if you're only installing and uninstalling, not writing anything). "Plugins" already has a specific rails meaning that we may or may not want to attach to. "Add-ons" is another option.
The other thing I'd like us to get clear on is how/where these words overlap with non-code structures in wagn.
It might be helpful for us to use this card to make one list things we want to name, another list of possible terms, and then propose ideas for mapping them. Maybe?
--Ethan McCutchen.....Wed Feb 23 17:03:35 -0800 2011
I've reworked the section up top along the lines that Ethan suggested, and am thinking maybe it's good to not even think about terms yet, but just see if we all think that those are the four things we want terms for? Anyone seeing a better way to slice the pie, more/fewer/different categories?
--John Abbe.....Wed Feb 23 22:16:06 -0800 2011
I realize I'm a little fuzzy on 4. Does it only apply to the existing code for the five groups listed there? (I'm using "group" instead of "set" because we can't (yet at least) define the set of cards with accounts :-P.) That is, is it true that no chunk of code developed as described in this Blueprint will fall into category 4?
--John Abbe.....Wed Feb 23 22:23:54 -0800 2011
This is looking really good now. We may be able to clear a lot of this discussions. Maybe leaving behind the few items that are not completely resolved.
Ethan, right-on for the "what to call it on first encounter" (canonically). Add-on or AddOn (inflected for context) works for me.
--Gerry Gleason.....Thu Feb 24 05:04:22 -0800 2011
I started this in hopes of resolving the vocabulary very soon, thinking that having it be consistent on Packs+API will make it more accessible to others (and us for that matter). Does that seem worthwhile?
If so, maybe a call with us plus Lew?
--John Abbe.....Thu Feb 24 14:42:51 -0800 2011
Should the modules be implemented as Ruby Gems, we may get some assitance with dependency checking and installation from Y. Katz's Gem Bundler. See Rails Bundling and Gem Bundler is the future.
+gem bundler+example
I use Wagn 1.5.2 with Passenger 3.0.2 and Bundler 1.0.9. Bundler should really be the way to roll (out) the Wagn. It makes setup so much simpler. Here is a short How To:
To checkout 1.5.2 run:
git clone https://github.com/wagn/wagn.git
cd wagn
git checkout -b v1.5.2
git submodule update --initThen create the proper
GemfileandGemfile.lockfiles in the wagn directory :wget https://gist.github.com/raw/832674/985fc97d7f5ec04373815c28319cd87c5544d70e/Gemfile
wget https://gist.github.com/raw/832682/e63ef5773a5f8a21654bd044dee955876729c5a3/Gemfile.lockand run
bundle install --deploymentThis installs all required gems into the
vendor/bundledirectory.The
--deploymentswitch ensures that only gems managed by Bundler are used when running as Passenger or withbundle exec.E.g. to run rake tasks under that Bundle use
bundle exec rake <task>Do not forget to set up
config/database.ymlandconfig/wagn.rb.To run Wagn with WEBrick (in development environment):
bundle exec ruby script/serverBest of all: Passenger uses your bundle automatically.
- How do folks find/explore existing packs?
- What meta data do we gather about packs?
- How do we decide which packs come with default wagns?
old / out of date:
Gerry Gleason said:
Testing and test sets are getting some attention in this discussion, but I think this will need much more attention for modules to be reliable operationally. Basic functional testing is one thing, and we know we will need a variety of systems level tests that ensure features don't collide with one another.
Most critically, systems operations and admin tasks don't happen often enough of with enough variety to ever be fully tested. It is very difficult to simulate all the possible operational paths that may lead up to a certain systems state. I know that I have had to go into an SQL console to fix some problems that come up. That is to say, that code depends on representational regularities (invariant logical properties of the data) that may be broken by operational failures. We will need
utilities to: 1) verify the invariants are maintained. 2) Automatically fix corruption (i.e. like fsck) or 3) Additional tools to assist admins in fixing problems.
In this class is the way "uninstall" is very rarely tested, and potentially can break seemingly unrelated packages. Worse, stuff like db:migrate doesn't really have a function to back out these changes. If various modules require db:migrate type changes, we could have a "merge mess" in an environment (DB) that doesn't support merging or backout of steps very easily.
I put this in the +discussion card because I think most of it applies to what we'd want our testing to accomplish inside and outside of modules. might make for another Blueprint card?
--Ethan McCutchen.....Thu Oct 08 11:44:48 -0700 2009
If Wagn intends to move away from its relational database roots in the future, should support for something like CouchDB be implemented before the module hooks and API systems are designed?
--Marcus Estes.....Mon Oct 12 15:44:47 -0700 2009
That's an extremely good question and one which we've probably been answering too casually with things like "oh, we just need to make sure that the api and hooks are general enough to be portable." Clearly it could take us a good bit longer to get to 1.0 if we make this a prereq, but it may be worth it. Lew, I know this is an area of passion for you. Want to weigh in?
--Ethan McCutchen.....Tue Oct 13 07:14:06 -0700 2009
Has Marcus' question been considered further or is it too late now :-)?
Another benefit we could list:
let us all try out a variety of features and see which ones we may want to incorporate into the core database
--John Abbe.....2013-03-22 19:22:27 +0000
Strategically, we have to do 2.0 in order to be able to do low-level nosql (not the other way around).
Technically, the db interactions are pretty well contained behind WQL. I'm sure WQL will have to evolve at least somewhat to fit, but that's not a major consideration for the rest of the API.
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-22 20:44:55 +0000
From Ethan, elsewhere: the closest thing to a list of packs is to look at the code: https://github.com/wagn/wagn/tree/master/lib/wagn/set For example, if you click on "type" you'll see all the types that have pack code associated with them. Similarly, you can go to https://github.com/wagn/wagn-cldstr to see all the client packs (click on wagn-clientname, then files-ws to see the pack file itself). If you decide to make a written list, please don't make it public. This is a case where inaccurate is worse than nonexistent, imo, and I guarantee we won't keep it accurate.
--John Abbe.....2013-05-09 08:28:18 +0000
So, this is what is going to become Mod?
--John Abbe.....2013-09-19 22:05:15 +0000
Yes, I've been pulling the best of it into mods
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-09-19 22:07:50 +0000
(Closing this)
--Ethan McCutchen.....2014-12-31 21:32:37 +0000Also see:
Development Tickets (by status)
Ideas
Documentation Tickets
Support Tickets
implement Traitsimplement view modules
Ajax sidebar module user storyupdating batches of cards at once