2017-01-24 Meeting notes
Date
Jan 24, 2017
7am PST
Meeting Link
https://www.uberconference.com/villagereach-isg
Optional dial in:
Dial in: 213-493-0531
PIN: 74762
Attendees
@Josh Zamor (Deactivated)
@Elias Muluneh
@Chongsun Ahn (Unlicensed)
@Nick Reid (Deactivated)
@Ben Leibert
@Brandon Bowersox-Johnson
@Pengfei Cui (Deactivated)
@Paweł Gesek
@Sebastian Brudziński
@Nikodem Graczewski (Unlicensed)
Goals
Look at Product model changes
Discuss 3.0 - critical path. What do we need to deploy, what should we ensure the first production release has (db migrations, right checks, @transactional, etc)
Discuss service level rights
Shared library - what goes in there
Discussion items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
5m | Startup | Josh |
|
45m (went long) | Product Model | Josh | |
5m | Service level rights | Group, thanks to Chongsun and Brandon | https://github.com/OpenLMIS/openlmis-auth/blob/master/DESIGN.md |
5m | Shared library | Group | https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/openlmis-dev/zUn_GhRKr4A |
Notes
Commodity Model (used to be known as Product Model) was introduced, discussed, etc. There were a few questions, but largely it seems like the changes are well understood. Some items:
since CommodityTypes have a classification system, that guidance should be added to the configuration guide. i.e. don't name your "classification system" as something that'll overlap in a known classification system that may be adopted later.
More concreate / examples of when to setup an Orderable, and how many in the case of Commodity type fulfilled by Trade Item, would be useful
Briefly (too) discussed service level rights, why they're needed, etc. For more information, it's well documented.
Also briefly looked at the dev forum posting on the shared library. We're all in agreement that Darius' point about DTOs being published by the Service that owns the resource makes the most sense. We also talked about more pure utility classes that aren't owned by a single Service (e.g. Message, ValidationMessageException, etc) that would still likely live in the shared library (which sparked the discussion). We agreed that Service's publishing their DTOs to Maven may not be on the critical path for 3.0, however it'd be a nice to have and it's likely not a huge lift to get there (e.g. we have a pattern we've worked on in the Example service). A ticket should be added to properly track this work.
Action items
OLMIS-1733: Reference Data Service should publish its client libraryTo Do