Community
Participate
Working Groups
Right now in the UI, we check the repo shown in a dialog and if it's writable, we let the user fill in the name field. But for a new repo, we don't know ahead of time, and so we let the user fill in the name field. This means that when adding an artifact repo (which is never writable) or a non-local metadata repo, the dialog makes you think you can name it. We need a way to guess better up front. Or at the very least let the user know the name was not assigned. Once the repo is in existence, we can check its writability, so the properties page for repos correctly grays out the name field if it is not writable.
Artifact repos are writeable. in fact, the only implementation we have (SimpleArtifactRepository) does implement IWritableArtifactRepository. The problem is that they do not implement IWritableRepositoryInfo. This was not added as there was some disucssion around the approach. As it is now we atually do not have a User/Admin notion of "new" repos. The new API flow distinguishes between known repos, existing but not yet loaded repos and repos that do not exist. Known repos appear in the UI list. Not yet loaded repos can be loaded/added by giving a URL. No further information should be needed. Creating new repositories should be an explicit operation/choice. So I would suggest that in the add... we just remove the name field from the dialog.
see also Bug 204338
Trying to check for write access of the repo is not the proper approach since if you were to write to the repo it would change the repo for everyone. I think that what is needed here is the ability for the artifact repo mgr to be able to keep track on an association "end user name"/repo. On the other end do we really believe that nanimg repository is that interesting anyway? Susan what is your take on that? Related bug #204346
Hmmm...I wrote this bug report during M2 push in response to some code that's been in there since M1. It checks to see if the repository info is writeable and if so, it shows the name field. The problem with the current code structure was simply that the common code, when used to add a repo, didn't know what kind of repo is ultimately being added, while the subclasses did, and there was no mechanism in place to let the subclasses get rid of that field. I think in M3 we should do something like: - get rid of the name field in the end user UI and in the add repo UI - include a name field in any admin tools that create repos or otherwise manipulate them (category creation, etc.) There is already a bug saying "should we let users assign nicknames to repos" and that bug should represent that feature, which I don't think is as important as the category tooling and such.
Removed name field from the "add repository" dialog. The name still shows up in repo properties, but is not editable. Bug #203536 covers the need for a repo creation facility which presumably would let you also specify a name. Bug #194224 covers user nicknames for repos. Closing this bug.
