[MGNLCMNT-13] Fix forum nodetypes Created: 22/Jul/09  Updated: 04/Nov/15  Resolved: 04/Nov/15

Status: Closed
Project: Commenting (closed)
Component/s: persistence
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: Backlog - Next

Type: Task Priority: Major
Reporter: Magnolia International Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Won't Do Votes: 0
Labels: next
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
causality
is causing MGNLCMNT-47 Anonymous commenting completely misus... Closed
dependency
is depended upon by MGNLFORUM-92 Moderation list query is broken since... Closed
is depended upon by MGNLCMNT-1 Provide page commenting paragraph Closed
Template:
Acceptance criteria:
Empty
Task DoR:
Empty
Date of First Response:

 Description   

See reopening of MGNLCMNT-1:

Reopening: rev 22380 breaks the moderation features !
... which depend on a property not being set in the message node. Given our narrowing-down of queries, this can't work properly anymore if messages have subnodes. I don't see why these extra property have to be in a subnode.
http://svn.magnolia-cms.com/view/community/modules/magnolia-module-forum/trunk/src/main/resources/mgnl-nodetypes/magnolia-forum-nodetypes.xml?r1=22380&r2=22379&pathrev=22380



 Comments   
Comment by Magnolia International [ 09/Jan/14 ]

This is about fixing MGNLCMNT-1, MGNLCMNT-47 and MGNLFORUM-92 properly.
The current nodetype definition is unnecessarily complex. For commenting purposes, we added a subnode to messages called properties of type mgnl:messageProperties. If I recall correctly, this was to circumvent the fact that mgnl:message nodes did not allow arbitrary extra properties, but the commenting module needed to add some properties.

I'd suggest this:

  • get rid of this subnode and the mgnl:messageProperties type
  • confirm that arbitrary properties can now be added to message nodes (I think that's been fixed since)
  • if commenting still need extra properties (other than those used by MGNLCMNT-47), I'd suggest adding a commenting-specific mixin. (and keep on allowing arbitrary properties anyway for flexibility)
    This involve migration, of course.
Comment by Michael Mühlebach [ 04/Nov/15 ]

Given the thousands of other issues we have open that are more highly requested, we won't be able to address this issue in the foreseeable future. Instead we will focus on issues with a higher impact, and more votes.
Thanks for taking the time to raise this issue. As you are no doubt aware this issue has been on our backlog for some time now with very little movement.
I'm going to close this to set expectations so the issue doesn't stay open for years with few updates. If the issue is still relevant please feel free to reopen it or create a new issue.

Generated at Mon Feb 12 00:02:19 CET 2024 using Jira 9.4.2#940002-sha1:46d1a51de284217efdcb32434eab47a99af2938b.