Right now, the {versioncontrol_operations} table contains author, committer, and uid fields. We're going to need to expand that in order to build out proper commit log listings, which means turning uid into author_uid and adding a committer_uid field. That'll also mean some changes to the entity classes (just updating property names, CRUD, etc.).
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #13 | 970256-author-committer-uid-fields-v3.patch | 12.09 KB | marvil07 |
| #12 | 970256-author-committer-uid-fields-v2.patch | 13.74 KB | marvil07 |
| #9 | 970256-author-committer-uid-fields.patch | 7.82 KB | sdboyer |
| #6 | 970256-author-committer-uid-fields.patch | 7.82 KB | sdboyer |
Comments
Comment #1
marvil07 commentedright, this make my mind go back to the moment I though that making a DVCS module was not such a bad idea... maybe we want to go in that way instead of hardcode again(1st time was setting committer and author fields on operations table) main vcs api?
Comment #2
marvil07 commentedmoving status as documentation
Comment #3
sdboyer commentedYeah, I was toying with that idea, too. There are some ways in which it might be better, though it does seem like it'd end up doing some crazy things to our schema. We'd also need to introduce some intermediary classes, certainly on the controller side and possibly on the entity side, that implement the special logic for a dvcs vs. a cvcs.
These fields are hardly the worst of it, though - really, #879600: Meta: introduce an activity stream separate from commit logs is a much bigger motivator to consider a split like that.
/me ponders
Comment #4
marvil07 commentedThis is also too related with #965890: [meta] Revisit VersioncontrolAccount and bring it up to speed
Comment #5
marvil07 commentedComment #6
sdboyer commentedPatch attached. It breaks some of the account status tests, and some things in the account status module. Which I don't really care about, except that it...yknow, breaks tests. Probably much faster for you to fix it, marvil07 ;)
Comment #7
eliza411 commentedTagging for consideration in git sprint 5
Comment #8
marvil07 commented@sdboyer: The patch on #6 do not really change our schema, and removes a hook_update_N(), are you sure you attached the right patch? (I do not see the relation with your propose at #0)
Comment #9
sdboyer commentedSorry, I posted a reversed patch. Here's the proper one.
Comment #10
marvil07 commentedComment #11
marvil07 commentedComment #12
marvil07 commentedThe patch grew a little, but tests are passing now ;-)
Comment #13
marvil07 commentedI decoupled one problem that is not really related with this issue and commit it directly(since the bug it started after another minor commit I did).
Then I make this patch, on top.
Comment #14
marvil07 commentedCommitted to make it easy to work on #979040: Make pluggable the process of mapping of raw vcs data to Drupal users.
Comment #15
sdboyer commented