[SHA-318] [List] For a model, view a list of of existing custom Types and Property Groups Created: 08-Jul-14 Updated: 17-Jul-20 Resolved: 05-Mar-15 |
|
Status: | Done |
Project: | Share Application |
Component/s: | Share Application |
Affects Version/s: | None |
Fix Version/s: | None |
Type: | Story | Priority: | Critical |
Reporter: | Mike Farman | Assignee: | Closed Bugs (Inactive) |
Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
Labels: | None | ||
Σ Remaining Estimate: | 0 minutes | Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified |
Σ Time Spent: | 3 days, 40 minutes | Time Spent: | Not Specified |
Σ Original Estimate: | 1 day, 7 hours | Original Estimate: | Not Specified |
Issue Links: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sub-Tasks: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Epic Link: | Custom Model Management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sprint: | CMM Sprint 1, CMM Sprint 2, CMM Sprint 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Story Points: | 3 |
Description |
User Story: "As a Model Manager I can view a list of existing Property Groups so that I can review them as a starting point to adding more, deploying them or deleting them" Notes:
|
Comments |
Comment by David Draper [X] (Inactive) [ 31-Oct-14 ] |
We could possibly manage this in a similar way in which we handle the "default" facets in the search manager at the moment. If we treat XML scripted aspects as "system property groups" (or some similar name) then it could be possible to still disable/enable them (as that could potentially still be a viable requirement). If we end up rendering both Property Groups and XML Aspects in the same list of "things" to apply to a Node, then there would probably be an expectation to also manage them in the same list as well. It should be possible to view all aspects/property groups in the same manager list... we could always have an "include system property groups" check box in the same way as we have an "include system groups" in the Groups manager page. |
Comment by David Draper [X] (Inactive) [ 04-Nov-14 ] |
The list of Property Groups should appear in the page that we create for managing Property Groups |
Comment by Bindu Wavell (Inactive) [ 24-Nov-14 ] |
I'm trying to reverse engineer what a property group is from comments on the recent product management office hours with Richard Esplin and the stories that are publicly available via JIRA. This seems like something where Alfresco will provide tools for creating custom aspects via UI tooling. It would be good to see stories that call out who will use these features and why they are important (I have some use cases in mind, I wonder what product management is thinking here.) Anyway I noticed the list of ways of distinguishing system vs dynamic vs property group aspects in this ticket and it occurred to me. Why not just have a base aspect that all property groups inherit from? |
Comment by David Draper [X] (Inactive) [ 24-Nov-14 ] |
Bindu Wavell It's important to realise a couple of things here:
So we may yet create more user stories around Property Groups.... we're using Agile so we could be creating new stories right up until the last sprint, so don't expect there to be a comprehensive set now. We're also taking an iterative approach to development, and these stories relate to a first pass based on what we can easily achieve now.... so what gets implemented for this user story may yet get replaced by a later story (e.g. if we decided to make more in-depth model changes or updates to how the Repository handles the model) In terms of your specific question.... that might be one approach, however - just inheriting from a base Aspect class doesn't prevent bootstrapped classes from also extending that class, sure - it might be a silly thing to do, but it wouldn't guarantee an Aspect was a Property Group.... anyway, we have more questions than answers at the moment I think |
Comment by Bindu Wavell (Inactive) [ 24-Nov-14 ] |
@ddraper, completely get all of your caveats. There were really two points in my comment. First was that there are a bunch of stories about an epic called "Property Groups" but there does not seem to be a definition of what these are, what business problems they are intended to solve, etc. As I was attempting to infer internal discussions/thinking based on public stories... ugh |
Comment by Christine Thompson [X] (Inactive) [ 22-Apr-15 ] |
Setting Fix Version for first release |