On Feb. 26, 2013, 7:15 p.m., 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.
- Martin
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/8/#review10
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 26, 2013, 9:28 a.m., Martin Krizek wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/8/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Feb. 26, 2013, 9:28 a.m.)
Review request for blockerbugs.
Bugs: 332
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/332
Repository: blockerbugs
Description
-------
Make navigation bar content loaded dynamically
Diffs
-----
blockerbugs/templates/index.html 17b98b686664754de74158afb4c793e245660690
blockerbugs/templates/base_nav.html f3a89798a9dadf297e722c067ad3795a72ebbf74
blockerbugs/controllers/main.py e7525f8433d74802f7c0cb2d719f0abdc13431c4
Diff:
http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/8/diff/
Testing
-------
Thanks,
Martin Krizek