Pum 1.0.0, questions and ideas

[marioba]

Hi to all, Pum users and developers. Pum is growing and I think it's time to do some cleaning and refactoring to the code and define what the future of Pum should be.

I started doing a global refactoring of the Pum's code on a new branch https://github.com/opengisch/pum/tree/to_version_one (at the moment it is very incomplete).

Here are my ideas:

Goals

• improve the code structure
• fix the issue about the config file #5, difficult to solve with the current code structure
• fix some illogical things (for example, the current baseline command require the delta directory as an option), difficult to fix with the current code structure
• make adding new commands much easier
• improve the tests
• improve the documentation (for users and developers)

Questions and ideas

• divide the test-and-upgrade command into 2 separate test and upgrade (already existing) commands
• improve the output of the check command, but how?
• add other useful commands (for example, a command that generate a delta file from the difference between two databases)
• ...

Feel free to add comments and ideas to this issue

[elemoine]

Sounds great to me. I agree with all the goals you listed. And I agree that the output of the check command should be improved – quite hard to read currently.

I am not sure about removing the test-and-upgrade command though. As long as the underlying commands (check and upgrade) are available I find it good to provide a higher-level command that just does the right thing.

One thing that we may need in the future is support for multiple delta dirs. This can be added later, but I think the new design should not make it hard to support that in the future.

[elemoine]

Another thing I'd be interested improving: the test framework. Running the automated tests is not convenient today. I'd suggest to improve the situation and use pytest.

[ponceta]

@marioba Custom SRS for deltas could be great otherwise its a mess for internationalization https://github.com/qwat/qwat-data-model/issues/199

[elemoine]

I'd say "custom parameters" rather than "custom SRS".

Pum could use cursor.execute(delta_file.read(), vars), with vars being set based on custom user parameters.

[haubourg]

I'd say "custom parameters" rather than "custom SRS". +1

[3nids]

I have a pr almost ready for this.

Le mar. 24 avr. 2018 à 03:12, Régis Haubourg [email protected] a écrit :

I'd say "custom parameters" rather than "custom SRS".

+1

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/opengisch/pum/issues/25#issuecomment-383827661, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHxG2qXJeSYC9R-JqfA86Ve3HQZaUXeks5trtBVgaJpZM4SPnGO .

[3nids]

done :)