Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Stapf functions #55

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Stapf functions #55

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

JanLuca
Copy link
Member

@JanLuca JanLuca commented Dec 2, 2017

No description provided.

@fabianfreyer
Copy link
Collaborator

could you move the addition of the vendored javascript libraries into separate commit(s)? That makes the other changes easier to review.

@JanLuca
Copy link
Member Author

JanLuca commented Sep 21, 2018

@fabianfreyer Commit split up. Please review

Copy link
Collaborator

@fabianfreyer fabianfreyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code itself LGTM, modulo testing.

Some smaller, architectural notes: I'm not sure the account_management system really is the right place for this, as it's becoming a big, clunky, monolith. I'm guessing that started with integrating the registration logic, which was really a hack. Originally, this application was supposed to remain a small, slim LDAP-Backed OAuth provider with some administrative views for account management. Maybe a standalone service that authenticates against the OAuth provider and uses the appropriate scopes to verify group membership and access might be more appropriate and maintainable?

Given my other feedback is mostly just nitpicking and formalities, I'm gonna recommend merging this PR (possibly adressing my other comments - that's up to you, @JanLuca) and then at some later time separating out this and the registration logic into a separate application.

file_path = db.Column(db.Text())
comment = db.Column(db.Text())

class Batch(db.Model):
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe a more descriptive name here might be better, e.g. MailBatch

recipients = db.relationship("Recipient", secondary=RecipientToList, backref=db.backref('lists', lazy=True))
comment = db.Column(db.Text())

class Decision(db.Model):
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What exactly does a Decision represent? Maybe we can find better naming for this class...


{% block content %}
<div class="container">
<h1>Beschlüsse</h1>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should really start using proper i18n for this..., but that's not in scope for this PR ¯_(ツ)_/¯

@@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ def send_batch_mails(batch):
msg.attach(batch.decision.filename, "application/pdf", fp.read())
conn.send(msg)

msg = Message(batch.subject, recipients=[current_app.config['MAIL_STAPF']],
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this being commented out? Could this be hidden behind a config variable or a check if MAIL_STAPF is even set?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants