Rough out scheme list #122
Conversation
arches_lingo/src/arches_lingo/components/schemes/SchemeBoxes.vue
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
arches_lingo/src/arches_lingo/components/schemes/SchemeBoxes.vue
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
arches_lingo/src/arches_lingo/components/schemes/SchemeBoxes.vue
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
johnatawnclementawn
force-pushed
the
jmc/16_schemes_list
branch
from
d3b0ccb to
7efde48
Compare
jacobtylerwalls
force-pushed
the
jtw/new-tree-front-end
branch
from
09c1a24 to
b82dfa0
Compare
johnatawnclementawn
force-pushed
the
jmc/16_schemes_list
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1e9c49c to
b64b55d
Compare
|
now depends on archesproject/arches-vue-utils#6 |
jacobtylerwalls
force-pushed
the
jtw/new-tree-front-end
branch
from
e65f279 to
403ab8d
Compare
|
👋 @johnatawnclementawn ! Can you resolve the merge conflicts? Also unless I'm mistaken, this has a lot of leakage from jtw/new-tree-front-end ? |
johnatawnclementawn
force-pushed
the
jmc/16_schemes_list
branch
from
056791d to
19c78e3
Compare
jacobtylerwalls
force-pushed
the
jtw/new-tree-front-end
branch
from
6253eb9 to
7e0d0c8
Compare
johnatawnclementawn
force-pushed
the
jmc/16_schemes_list
branch
from
c03732e to
dc4130e
Compare
johnatawnclementawn
force-pushed
the
jmc/16_schemes_list
branch
from
eb25047 to
9b593eb
Compare
johnatawnclementawn
force-pushed
the
jmc/16_schemes_list
branch
from
980e46f to
4b042a5
Compare
|
@chrabyrd since we talked about fall-back values, flagging these lines |
|
|
||
| onMounted(async () => { | ||
| schemes.value = await fetchSchemes(); | ||
| schemes.value.unshift({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an interesting pattern. An equally valid pattern would be to manually create a list item for this entry. However I like this just fine 👍
| onMounted(async () => { | ||
| schemes.value = await fetchSchemes(); | ||
| schemes.value.unshift({ | ||
| resourceinstanceid: "placeholder-id", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clicking this populates the front-end route with /placeholder-id, and then refreshing issues a request for that route which fails because placeholder-id is not a uuid. We should harden for this somehow, but maybe without necessarily creating dummy data on the backend that we have to filter out everywhere else (which is what I like about what you're doing here!)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wasn't exactly sure what to do, which is why I ended up punting with placeholder-id... My thought was that a PR for adding the scheme-editor and it's corresponding route would be coming hot on the heels of this, and we could just swap placeholder-id for the new scheme route.
As you point out, it's probably not desirable to have a dummy uuid in lieu of string placeholder-id because we'd need to handle that on the back-end.
Alternatively, I could mint the new scheme resourceid here - but I see that as less desirable since it would create a new uuid each time /schemes is visited, even if creating a new scheme is not the intention of the user.
All that to say, I'm not exactly sure what to do about this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, got it. If we're about to swap in a new route for the scheme editor then all is good 👍
| onMounted(async () => { | ||
| schemes.value = await fetchSchemes(); | ||
| schemes.value.unshift({ | ||
| resourceinstanceid: "placeholder-id", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, got it. If we're about to swap in a new route for the scheme editor then all is good 👍
Depends on #86
& #104