MushroomObserver / mushroom-observer / 984
93%
main: 95%

LAST BUILD BRANCH: jdc-clean-string-with-trailing-nbsp
DEFAULT BRANCH: main
Ran
Jobs 1
Files 380
Run time 145min
Badge
Embed ▾
README BADGES
x

If you need to use a raster PNG badge, change the '.svg' to '.png' in the link

Markdown

Textile

RDoc

HTML

Rst
984

Pull #271

travis-ci

web-flow 
Remove backwards_compatibility portion of partioned ObserverController.

See Slack discussion:
>[09:00]
jdcohenesq Some questions/comments about BackwardsCompatibility
1. *Purpose*. Is it to:
(a) not break links from external websites and/or not break other requests from external sources?
(b) keep things running smoothly while ObserverController is being refactored?
2. If the purpose includes not breaking links from external websites or other external requests, should some/all methods be excepted from `:login_required`? If that’s the only purpose, do we need an `action_has_moved` for actions which write to the MO db?
…
[15:11]
nathan Regarding backwards compatibility, we try to keep all old links valid, at least if they are getting used.  action_has_moved is a reasonable approach, but I wonder if we should really be using routes for this.  In any case we should probably add some sort of logging for the use of old routes.  We should not change the login requirements on any route.
[15:41]
jdcohenesq Thanks for the help and advice.
A.  I was also wondering about using routes. But the downside is it would really complicate our current, wonderfully simple routes.
B.  Do you think that urls which require login (e.g., add_comment, bulk_name_edit, destroy_species_list) are getting used?
C.  There’s a bug in BackwardsCompatibiity#rewrite_url.  I’ll shortly create a PR to address the bug.  But maybe the PR should not be merged until the next issue is addressed.
D.  If we want to keep login requirements constant, then there’s another bug:  None of the BackwardsCompatibiity#action_has_moved is excepted from before_action :login_required, but many should be. In the PR comments, I’ll propose ways to fix this.
[16:09]
nathan I don't see that moving stuff out of observer_controller/backwards_compatibility would be more complicated than using routes.rb for it's intended purpose.  routes.rb is certainly where current Rails developers expect stuff like that to happen.  ... (continued)
Pull Request #271: Remove backwards_compatibility portion of partioned ObserverController.

16034 of 18467 relevant lines covered (86.83%)

327.37 hits per line

Jobs
ID Job ID Ran Files Coverage
1 984.1 (2.2.3) 0
86.83
 Travis Job 984.1
Source Files on build 984
Coverage ∆ File Lines Relevant Covered Missed Hits/Line