Custom Query (2152 matches)

Reported by dread, 2 years ago.

The log-in page says "Login using Open ID" and gives instructions for signing up. YET this is only available to users who've already added openid to their account. If you have not done this and then sign-in via OpenID (which is successful from the OpenID end) then you are told "Login failed. Bad username or password." in a flash message.

Proposed solution (i don't know if this is possible):

• When you log-in for the first time via OpenID, it doesn't actually log you in in CKAN. It just sends you to the 'Create User' page with the OpenID field pre-filled, and puts up a flash message "This OpenID account is not yet registered on thedatahub. Please complete your details.". This allows you to complete the registration and logs you in, and allows you to log-in directly with OpenID in the future.

Alternatives:

• Just change the error message to be 'You need to register in CKAN first. Quote your OpenID in the registration form to use it in future.'
• Remove OpenID altogether

Reported by dread, 2 years ago.

In the Web interface and API, an administrator can set the 'state' field of a group to 'deleted' but this change is ignored in the save/submit and it doesn't get deleted.

Reported by icmurray, 2 years ago.

Create the form wizard for the package-new form.

Each section of the form will be a separate page as this was decided to be simpler than the alternative of making AJAX calls for validation at each stage. (*)

• separate pages for each section of the form
• validation carried out at each stage against the whole schema. Each section/page declares a list of schema keys that need to validate for that section to validate, and thus move onto the next section.
• no draft saving to be performed in this ticket.

(*) - although the javascript alternative will probably provide better UX (each step would require a page-load in the wizard approach), it was decided that:

• with the javascript approach it would be harder to test the workflow.
• with the javascript approach there would be additional work displaying validation correctly. Although not that complicated, it was felt to add another point of failure.
• the multi-page wizard is quicker and easier to implement, and if it provided poor UX, then the javascript approach would be used instead.
• the multi-page wizard wouldn't preclude a javascript-tabbing create-form for other cases (where the wizard workflow wasn't such a good match, eg on the hedatahub.org)
• the multi-page wizard wouldn't preclude a javascript-tabbing edit-form.