meaning when changed to Cardtype or Role.   Also want to remove extension when the cardtype is changed away from Role or Cardtype.




Created Report and then changed its Cardtype to Cardtype. http://wagn.org/new/Report claims there is no such cardtype, and editing gets an application error:



Anyone know why Report was deleted? Was it causing data problems?

I tried to clean up extra cardtypes at some point.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....Sat Nov 21 22:26:53 -0800 2009

Application error when changing from Cardtype to anything else. Details:


Created http://test.dwagn.org/wagn/Shoe (Basic).

Changed its type to Cardtype.

Created "Gucci pumps" (type Shoe).

Changed "Gucci pump" type to something else.

Tried to change Shoe's type to Role and got an Application Error (and it's still a Cardtype).

Tried changing Shoe's type to Basic and got an Application Error.


Tested again the simpler case of creating http://test.dwagn.org/wagn/Scarf (Basic)

Changed to Cardtype.

Tried changing back to Basic, got an Application Error.


No problem changing cardtype to/from Role, even directly from Role to Cardtype. http://test.dwagn.org/wagn/Maven





I noticed that it's allowed to change a Role card's type away from Role even if people have that role; wondering if we want to make that impossible? (as we do with cardtypes if there are any cards of that type)

  --John Abbe.....Wed Dec 02 17:32:41 -0800 2009

good catch. we're deploying a fix now for changing from a cardtype


re Roles, sounds right. lots of role refactoring coming up. seems like there's a related ticket already, but if not please note somewhere.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....Thu Dec 03 09:25:26 -0800 2009

disallow changing type of roles in use

  --John Abbe.....Thu Dec 03 09:39:18 -0800 2009

ok, we're live.


(is that ticket related? it's just about subtabs, no?)

  --Ethan McCutchen.....Thu Dec 03 09:53:37 -0800 2009

That ticket is the note you asked me tomake. Couldn't find another ticket it made sense on (Role+tickets for item).

  --John Abbe.....Thu Dec 03 09:58:59 -0800 2009

If i switch back and forth from Cardtype to Basic, i get stuck in Cardtype (Application error when trying to switch away). See http://test.dwagn.org/wagn/Band and http://test.dwagn.org/wagn/Element


For Band, i created a card of that type and then changed it to another type. The second time i tried to change its type away from Cardtype it failed.


For Element, i never created a card of that type. The third time i tried to change its type away from Cardtype it failed.

  --John Abbe.....Thu Dec 03 10:31:58 -0800 2009

turns out the issue was an interface thing. It's also true that the class name is getting incremented because the constant doesn't get undefined, but the error in the partial is worth correcting anyway, while the constant problem will likely get fixed in the move to cardnames (and away from constants)

  --Ethan McCutchen.....Fri Dec 04 18:59:36 -0800 2009

1. Flipped Element back and forth among various cardtypes, no problem. Added an Element card and deleted it, got "*css - unknown card view: 'raw'" (and the URL: http://test.dwagn.org/*css?view=raw&layout=none ) . And now there's no type submenu when you edit http://test.dwagn.org/wagn/Element Did the same thing with http://test.dwagn.org/wagn/Band and got the same results.


2. is the move from cardnames from constants ticketed? does it want to be?

  --John Abbe.....Fri Dec 11 17:46:38 -0800 2009

1. the css thing is because *tiny_mce was pulling in css that weird way (which is not great) and using raw view, which is no longer supported (not just deprecated -- I took it out for this release so that next release we can reintroduce it with a new meaning). So when you deleted the card, you got redirected to the last card called, which was css from tiny_mce (broken). This is why it's important to use card/view -- that way it doesn't get added to the redirect cue. anyway: unrelated, local, and fixed


The missing edit submenu is because the card in the trash is still found as an Element card. I made a patch so that it won't do this. If it works, awesome! If not, it's not really part of this ticket -- let's make another one.


2. no, but it's part of the Blueprint for Packs, which hasn't really been broken down into tickets yet, which is probably ok until we have more of a strategy in place.

  --Ethan McCutchen.....Sat Dec 12 13:26:01 -0800 2009

1. Looks all good now, closing.

  --John Abbe.....Sun Dec 20 08:44:44 -0800 2009