|This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/8/|
On February 26th, 2013, 7:15 p.m. UTC, Tim Flink wrote:Code looks good to me for the most part. I realize that we've talked about g versus session for storing this data before but I'm hitting some minor issues regarding the ability of the menu bars to update. When I start adding/removing milestones, the only way that the menu bar is updated is if I start a new browser session - this means quitting the browser and re-starting _without_ restoring the previous session. There might be a better way to force a refresh but either way, I'm not so sure about putting the refresh burden on users instead of handling it in the app. Unfortunately, I can't think of many good ways to make this work well that don't involve an extra database query per request. One way would be to have a statically defined expiration in the session (like 1 day after initial load) and force refresh after that expiration. However, that has its own pitfalls and adds complexity - I'm not convinced this is a good idea. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to go back to what you had initially and use g. It would involve extra database queries but if that becomes a problem, caching would work well to reduce server load - most of the content is relatively static (in the timeframe of sync operations, 30 minutes right now) and caching could be a good way to work around this.
In general, I agree. However, and please correct me if I am wrong, our use case is to put milestones into db before the testing starts (before the app is actually used by anyone). Then there is a testing period and then there is a testing break during which the session expires. And after the break we put the new milestones into db again. In this scenario I don't see the problem with refreshing the milestones. Or do we add/delete/change milestones during the testing period? Or are we planning to do that? If so, we should use the g object, otherwise, I think we're better off with session.
On February 26th, 2013, 9:28 a.m. UTC, Martin Krizek wrote:
Review request for blockerbugs.
By Martin Krizek.
Updated Feb. 26, 2013, 9:28 a.m.