Custom Query (2152 matches)

Reported by ross, 2 years ago.

The Package model should have a approval_status as the Group model does. See migration 049.

Reported by dread, 2 years ago.

lxml is used in CKAN core in two places:

• ckan/lib/helpers.py:239 Parsing Markdown and ensuring it is valid XML (i.e. tags close nicely so the HTML of the rest of the CKAN page is not disruptable).
• reading the SOLR config XML to determine what version it is.

Both of these could be done with xml.dom built into Python and would save us a sizeable and slightly problematic dependency.

lxml is needed by these extensions: ckanext-inspire, ckanext-harvest, ckanext-csw & ckanext-wordpresser, so we'd have to add this to their requirements.

Reported by rgrp, 2 years ago.

This is a reworking of the existing apps extension.

Initial proposal at ​http://wiki.ckan.org/Proposals#Apps_in_CKAN and ​http://wiki.ckan.org/Proposals#References.2FLinks_in_CKAN

Naming

What do we call this extension?

• related
  • RP best IMO but perhaps too close to separate relationships concept?
• relatedstuff
• links
• references

Proposal

"Related Stuff": Apps as in an application (website/service/tool) that uses this dataset (as in Apps and Ideas extension)

• This case seems a general example of wanting to link some external thing to a dataset (e.g. this policy paper refs this dataset, this application uses this dataset, this visualization is built on this dataset cf ​http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-discuss/2011-August/001607.html)

Implementation

New table named Related with following structure

|| id (int) || type || title || description (markdown) || image_url || owner_id || url || created (timestamp)

• type = Idea | App | API | Visualization | Post | Paper | News Article
  • Suggest we make this a ckan.ini config option (comma separated ...?)
    • Do we want the possibility of different templates for different types of Related objects?

• image: ?? Depends where we store images. Simplest option would be to change to image_url and leave it to users to have already uploaded an image somewhere. If not we need to support image uploading and storage. See #1692 (add image attribute to datasets and groups) for more discussion, once implemented the URL here can be an internal url.

• owner_id = user_id or creating user (see authorization below)

Related2Dataset (note that related_id, dataset_id tuple should be unique). This allows for m2m connections. If a given related item is only with one dataset this could be simplified. May contain status so dataset owner can turn this on/off.

|| id || dataset_id || related_id || status

status should be used to allow for a dataset owner (for dataset_id) to de-activate the relationship between the dataset and the related.

Url

• /dataset/{dataset-name}/related/{related-item-id}/{related-item-title-stringified}
  • If a reference item could exist in its own right (and perhaps refer to multiple datasets then it should get its own url at e.g. /related/{id}
• /dataset/{dataset-name}/related/add => Modal dialog on related tab so we can use API to create them.

/dataset/{id}/related <- list

• use image_url for small icon etc, title description (shortened?)
• Click through to full related item (optional)
• dataset owner is shown show / hide button ... (or on /dataset/{id}/related/{id} )
• related owner sees an edit button / icon (pops up modal)

/dataset/{id}/related/{id} (optional)

/dataset/{id} will have a Related tab (with bubble with count).

• Drop down with Add Related -> Pop-up modal and save via API

(Not used: /related/add with dataset prefilled ... )

/related/{id}/edit

Authorization

Addition of related item be considered orthogonal to datasets (and hence with separate authorization i.e. i can add the info that site X uses dataset Y without needing permission to edit dataset Y).

Thus any logged in user could add a Related item. We set the owner of the related item to creating user and going forward only that user or a sysadmin can update or delete.

NB: we could have a system where datasets owners have to approve related items before they show up next to their dataset. This would add substantial complexity so I propose we leave out of phase 1.

Tasks and estimates {7.5d}

[x] Model + Migration for Related table. {0.75d}

[x] Controller for Related (or relevant sections in Package controller). {0.75d}

[x] Routing setup. {0.25d}

[x] Schema for related. {0.5d}

[x] Logic layer actions. {1.0d}

[x] Auth (default + publisher). {0.5d}

[x] Templates + Dataset changes (new tab etc). {1.0d}

[x] JS Application for adding Related objects in a modal. {1.0d}

[x] Testing. {0.75d}

[x] Dataset owner disabling of Related (via M2M table). {0.5d}

• Updated to allow author of related to delete as well

[x] Documentation. {0.25d}