Documentation and installation improvements?

[emilyf]

We are trying to get Crew Connect / CiviVolunteer up and running on SPNN. It looks like for crew connect there is currently no documentation. Since we're going to be installing this, it seems like a good opportunity for us to contribute the documentation. My questions for this are:

• Is there documentation anywhere at present for how to get this fully up and running that I've missed? If not, are you good with us contributing some?

• The info module says "Provides helper files for managing crew connections. Relies on the Crew Request and Crew Application content types" -- I assume these are on MNN. I looked on cmadvanced.org and did not see a feature or anything that contains these content types. Would you like FTM to create a featurized module that includes these and contribute that back?

• I also noticed that in some of the include files there are referenced views. I do not see these views anywhere in this module. Would you like FTM to featurize the views and include them either in this module or a secondary module? Would like to help make this module more plug and play, so let us know what we can do to help and if there is a particular workflow you'd prefer.

Given there are a few things to address here, wondering if we should work off a new branch or if you want us to still provide all of this as patches? Let me know what works best.

[libkuman]

Hi Emily,

So the crew connect module was written extremely rapidly and only specifically for MNN's use case. The long term plan was always a shareable module, but for expediency sake some very custom MNN stuff is in the module. As far as documentation, there is none other than code comments within the module.

The content types are not in a feature but I think it makes sense in putting it in a feature. However, would probably have to do some work to make sure the fields make sense for any station.

As far as the view files, these days I"ve been leaning towards just including the views in code but not adding them to a feature, but since we are possibly going to be adding content types as parts of a feature, it might make since to add the views as well.

I think this is a borderline case of when we'd want to make a new branch. New branches should be made when the code drastically changes. If all we are doing is featurizing it and adding documenation it can stay in same branch. But if we start making changes on how things work, especially in regards to making it truly generic, then it probably should go in a new branch.

I know improving crew connect was pretty high on craig's list, so maybe at some point we all touch base on a good way forward with this module.

[emilyf]

Hey Mark -

Thanks for the update. Let's definitely touch base about this. I know for SPNN this is a really high priority, but I don't want to just throw it in there without improving it. If it's also high on Craig's list, then it'd be great to have a conversation about if MNN can prioritize this soon so that Open Flows can do the work (obviously being the most familiar with the module, I'm happy to turn it over to you guys!). If you would like FTM to help or assist, we are more than happy to do that. I'll talk with you and Craig offline and we can figure out the plan to move this one forward. Thanks for the quick response.

[ericfg]

As you all know I have a slightly irrational hate of features. Also, I don't know how easy it will ever be to make this generic enough so that the content fields and such make sense all around/to any context/site. I'd prefer that if we are going to have to build a content type for this that it be either a simple export from bundle_copy that can be imported, or contained in the module's install file without involving features. Getting this installed on SPNN on your own, given the current state of the module will likely take a while, as mark said, it was not at all written to be portable in this incarnation. There are hard coded template id's in there as well and a number of other things that are very MNN specific.

…

--Eric

On 9/11/17 11:34 AM, libkuman wrote: Hi Emily, |So the crew connect module was written extremely rapidly and only specifically for MNN's use case. The long term plan was always a shareable module, but for expediency sake some very custom MNN stuff is in the module. As far as documentation, there is none other than code comments within the module. The content types are not in a feature but I think it makes sense in putting it in a feature. However, would probably have to do some work to make sure the fields make sense for any station. | As far as the view files, these days I"ve been leaning towards just including the views in code but not adding them to a feature, but since we are possibly going to be adding content types as parts of a feature, it might make since to add the views as well. I think this is a borderline case of when we'd want to make a new branch. New branches should be made when the code drastically changes. If all we are doing is featurizing it and adding documenation it can stay in same branch. But if we start making changes on how things work, especially in regards to making it truly generic, then it probably should go in a new branch. I know improving crew connect was pretty high on craig's list, so maybe at some point we all touch base on a good way forward with this module. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABjHFiGJCBf-kYMGkSJ--SSpsmuCuANsks5shVL9gaJpZM4PTT-w>.