-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
mapr extension of webclient #74
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
To test:
|
9ff9a7c
to
c58ccb7
Compare
The test described in #74 (comment) is passing. But when I click in the LHP onto the top node (, I get a 404 error |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some questions remaining, see #74 (comment) please
@pwalczysko yes, sorry - I had noticed that 404 error earlier. |
This overwriting strategy has caused much pain especially in terms of tracking and syncing upstream changes. Thus I am very supportive to any effort to getting rid of it. I have two concerns about the current proposal:
Is it not possible to extend the base |
If I wanted to create a new page, e.g. at But this in not what mapr needs to do. Mapr does not create a new page. I wants to change the behaviour of the host page. This is the same approach used for right-panel and centre panel extensions, and top links etc. The webgateway base_site.html template used to support an I would also prefer not to add configuration if possible, which is why I first used the alternative approach of providing a single template path that could be used to inject custom code without configuration. The limitation of this approach is that it can only be used by one app at a time, whereas the config option allows multiple apps to add their templates to the list to be included. |
Yes, the 404 Error reported in #74 (comment) is solved now. LGTM - happy for this to be merged once the discussion about the code architecture is solved. |
To summarise the pros and cons of various approaches:
EDIT: My preference is for a new option added below! |
Ah - I remembered I'd thought of another option at ome/omero-web#425 (comment)
This option has the best Pros/Cons balance and is now implemented in this PR and at ome/omero-web#425 |
If I understand correctly, @will-moore, this is starting to feel much more "extension-y" (as opposed to "hack-y" or "custom-y") but a configuration is still required, right? In which case, I guess from our conversation it's @sbesson who should be feeding back. The only concern I have but could imaging leaving for a future iteration of refactoring is the hard overwriting of the global function. That feels like it isn't something that we can suggest as a general practice and therefore won't scale (i.e. "custom-y") |
There is no configuration required as in |
Closing for now since ome/omero-web#425 is excluded... |
This is now deployed on idr-testing. cc @sbesson @francesw @jburel @pwalczysko |
@will-moore explained that #74 (comment) is a new addition to mapr which aims to have the Description "cleaned-up". The RHP looks good to me on idr-testing. Nothing against this cleaning of the Description, but I think it would be better to have this mapr change in a separate PR ? |
lgtm on idr-testing |
Excluding this temporarily to test that ome/omero-web#425 works OK without this PR (not a breaking change). EDIT - removed flag. |
See ome/omero-web#425
This uses the
OME.getCustomUrl()
function in that PR to allow extending a webclient template instead of duplicating and replacingright_plugin_general.js.html
. All customisations that mapr needs are moved into an extension of thebase_container.html
, adding content to the top of the page in thescript
block.To test: