Re: [limesurvey-developers] "training" for developers on Expression Manager is ready
The leading Open Source survey tool
Brought to you by:
c_schmitz
From: Thomas W. M. M. M. <tw...@co...> - 2011-09-23 11:23:06
|
Hi all. EM already uses existing fieldnames internally, so there is no need to change them. In fact, changing them would require some major re-work in EM and other parts of the LimeSurvey. Rather, EM provides question code as an alias to access the underlying SGQA fieldname. So, we should still have something like $enforce_question_code_consistency = true, but we don't need to overhaul the fieldnames themselves. The other advantage of SGQA fieldnames is that you don't have to worry about having them overwrite any other internal PHP variable names. If you really wanted to move away from SGQA, you'd need to move the stored SGQA values into a sub-section of $_SESSION so there are no namespace collisions. /Tom On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Thibault Le Meur < Thi...@su...> wrote: > Le 23/09/2011 11:12, Marcel Minke (Limesurvey) a écrit : > > Hi everybody, > > I totally agree that we should add a check for unique question codes. Can > somebody open a ticket for this? > > I also see the long term consequences of redesigning the fieldmaps, but > that's nothing I would like to touch soon. Better get the CI version stable > first. So how about adding the uniqueness check at the current CI version > without an update procedure so far? Since we are planning to name the next > release "Limesurvey 2.0 alpha" the user should expect some major changes so > it should not be too hard to argue "The new EM will rely on unique question > codes so there is a check for it when creating new surveys. If you want to > use EM for old, existing surveys, please check the uniqueness yourself > (either manually or by a function which the user could call from the admin > backend)". > I consider this the easier way which also takes care of the tough time line > to release a first Limesurvey 2.0 version at mid October. > > > I feel the same about this Mazi. > > Thibault > > > > > Just my 2 cents... > > Have a nice weekend everybody, > Marcel > > Am 23.09.2011 09:25, schrieb Carsten Schmitz: > > > Enforcing a unique question code across the survey should not be too hard. > But if we enforce it we have to make sure that all existing surveys don't > have duplicate codes so there needs to be an upgrade procedure which takes > care of that. > Especially in the case of active surveys this will be a great mess. > > If we start doing changes like that we should go the whole nine yards and > redesign the fieldnames completely (same great mess) but only once. > > > > > Am 23.09.2011 09:13, schrieb Thibault Le Meur: > > Le 23/09/2011 09:07, Menno Dekker a écrit : > > >From export (SPSS/R) perspective I always advice people to have unique > question codes. The SGQA if is a pain for portability so I would love to see > some kind of check for a unique question code. On activate would be enough > and the easiest to do, but a check on question save would be much better. > This unique code can then be used as ID in the javascript too. Makes porting > custom js a lot easier. > > > > I fully agree with you Menno. > Morover, in order to avoid a potential SGQA collision between "SGQ" and > "SGQA" fieldnames, I strongly recommend to use question code beginning with > a Letter (not a number). > > I would propose a new global setting "$enforce_question_code_consistency = > true" that would enforce these 2 points: > * a question code must be unique within the survey > * a question code begins with a char other than a number > > My 2 cents, > Thibault > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2 > > > > _______________________________________________ > limesurvey-developers mailing lis...@li...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/limesurvey-developers > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2 > > > _______________________________________________ > limesurvey-developers mailing lis...@li...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/limesurvey-developers > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2 > > > > _______________________________________________ > limesurvey-developers mailing lis...@li...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/limesurvey-developers > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2 > _______________________________________________ > limesurvey-developers mailing list > lim...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/limesurvey-developers > > |