rubyforgood
Add another fully set up bank to the seed.
Summary
Add an additional fully set-up bank to the seed.
Why?
Useful for manual testing that reports, etc, that should be restricted to one bank's information, are.
Details
WE will want to add the bank, and a bank admin. Also a partner, with the accompanying user.
Contact info: Name: Second City Essentials Bank Contact email (will be email of admin): [email protected]
Partner info:
Name: Second City Senior Center
email: [email protected]
It'd be nice if it had a couple of unique items -- named something like "Second City Item [number]", just so it'll be clear if they are showing up where they shouldn't. Set it up with a few donations, purchases, requests, and distributions. No need to go wild .
Criteria for completion
- [ ] Bank and accompanying other records added to the seed.
- [ ] Contributing.md documentation updated to include the signons.
This issue is marked as stale due to no activity within 30 days. If no further activity is detected within 7 days, it will be unassigned.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Mostly wrapping things up, but there are some points I'd like clarification on.
The new bank's admin having the [email protected] breaks with the current pattern of the other two banks just having numbered emails ([email protected], [email protected], etc.). I want to double check: is that's something we want to do?
There are a number of places in seed.rb where the Faker library is used to generate names, addresses, contact information, etc. However, there are also several places where the library isn't used and hand-written values are used. Is there a preference between the two? Should I be reworking seed.rb to always use one of these two methods?
The current pattern is legacy, to be sure. I think having a reasonable connection between the login and the name of the bank works.
As for the other -- @dorner -- do your strong opinions around randomized test data extend to the seed?
When it comes to seeds I don't really care much, because it's just for manual testing. If anything I think you'll have a more educated opinion than me :)
(Nods) I don't see any need for rework vis-a-vis Faker vs hard-coded values. On a going forward basis, I would tend towards Faker rather than hard-coded, as better for demo purposes, but it's not a big deal.