Site base URL problems
|Assignee:||Dan Gillean||% Done:|
|Target version:||Release 2.2.0|
|Google Code Legacy ID:||Tested version:|
Some notes about the new siteBaseUrl that may need some attention:
configureSite form not working (I fixed that in 7e715e217d707b049818b0ed0c0a598a5e6074b4 as it was breaking (see #7415)
- Dan suggested to add a tooltip in configureSiteSuccess.php explaining the reasoning behind the field. We should probably also add that the default value generated works most of the times.
- The section "Run the web installer" in atom-docs.git has to be updated accordingly (branch 2.2, which I believe does not exist yet)
- When I go to "/settings/list" the field is not populated under (section "Site information")
- Ideally we had a migration path for users running older versions of AtoM. Valid options could be: adding a note in the upgrading notes to 2.2, throw a error message requesting the user to update the value of site base URL if it's empty, etc...
#2 Updated by Dan Gillean over 7 years ago
If this is a problem that will affect upgrades or fresh installs, shouldn't we consider pushing this fix, and its documentation etc, to stable/2.1.x, so it can be included in a 2.1 minor release? After all, this and #7415 seem to fix a new feature introduced in 2.1 (the base URL to solve export URL problems, etc), rather than introduce anything new that needs to wait for a 2.2 release.
#3 Updated by Mike Cantelon over 7 years ago
I could make the MODS/EAD exports error if site base URL setting is blank (they're the only exports that use the setting so far). Does that sound like a good solution? We could add a global warning (like the update check) but that would be a bit more work.
#4 Updated by Mike Cantelon over 7 years ago
- Status changed from New to Code Review
- Assignee changed from Mike Cantelon to Jesús García Crespo
Addressed issues in pull request:
I've also creates a 2.2 branch in the atom-docs repo and added documentation for the site base URL in it.
#6 Updated by Dan Gillean over 7 years ago
- Status changed from Code Review to QA/Review
- Requires documentation set to Yes
What I see in the PR looks good.
Mike C has already added some documentation to the 2.2 docs about installation - however, we will need to add a section in the Settings page, so I'm marking this as requiring documentation for now.
Mike, has this been merged into qa/2.2x yet? If not, please merge so I can test.
#9 Updated by Dan Gillean about 7 years ago
- Requires documentation deleted (