This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 24, 2018. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 24, 2018. It is now read-only.
Verify all model fields exposed in various contexts #605
Description
We should produce a spreadsheet that identifies the fields associated with each model, and the view context required to expose them.
For instance, in #603, we're still not quite sure which user attributes should be exposed in which context. It would be best to have a master list to work from (with agreed-upon model attribute names).
Also, as a part of this issue, we should audit the query arguments for collections. As much as possible, they should be consistent.
Activity
rmccue commentedon Nov 21, 2014
IIRC, we have a list of these that we decided at the WCNYC discussion?
danielbachhuber commentedon Nov 21, 2014
Start of the list me thinks. I'll dig it up tomorrow.
danielbachhuber commentedon Nov 24, 2014
Creating my spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BkPv1OxjV6ksdnlDnh1mtRUZ_SIwrg0upVki5DQ6eqw/edit?usp=sharing
danielbachhuber commentedon Nov 24, 2014
Few implementation questions I've run into:
avatar => avatar_url,registered => registered_date,parent => parent_id)?menu_order, posts have sticky, attachments have mime type)?typeattribute, how are we supposed to include the label that's included in the index? Re Add object type-to-route mapping to index for discoverability #577danielbachhuber commentedon Nov 27, 2014
From our conversation Monday:
Yes, we should be more explicit across the board.
Still TBD. I don't think we're at a conclusion.
danielbachhuber commentedon Nov 28, 2014
Kind of related, but more about routes, I think #655 is an argument for having each post type only accessible at a declared route (and dropping
filter[type])danielbachhuber commentedon Feb 10, 2015
@rachelbaker is documenting all of our responses here https://hackpad.com/ep/group/ngDYn5lciXQ
danielbachhuber commentedon Feb 19, 2015
@rachelbaker now that schemas have dropped and we have clear articulation of (most) of the existing resource attributes, how would you like to proceed?
danielbachhuber commentedon Feb 19, 2015
We could write the schema first for attachments, and build from there. Attachments is a tricky wicket because audio should have different attributes than video and file, etc.
danielbachhuber commentedon Mar 31, 2015
This is in pretty good shape now, but we should do a final pass as a part of b1
danielbachhuber commentedon Apr 27, 2015
These are pretty well documented in the schemas. We can open issues in the future as we have specific discussion points.