Not in members.txt - why is that classed as .not_found ?

[sebb <se...@gmail.com>]

At present, non-members are flagged with "Not in members.txt" which is
fine, but the text is in red.
That seems wrong; it's not an error to not be a member.

Maybe this crept in with the recent code re-org; I don't remember
noticing it earlier

Re: Not in members.txt - why is that classed as .not_found ?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:41 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 April 2016 at 11:39, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:40 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> At present, non-members are flagged with "Not in members.txt" which is
>>> fine, but the text is in red.
>>> That seems wrong; it's not an error to not be a member.
>>
>> It certainly was a surprise to me to find non-members in the ASF
>> member group.  And to the secretary too; particularly as there have
>> been periodic suggestions to replace members.txt with LDAP.
>>
>> I would like those differences to continue to be highlighted.  If we
>> can find an automated way to distinguish between those that were
>> intentionally added despite not being a member and unexplainable
>> differences, then perhaps a different color would be warranted.
>
> When I checked earlier today, *every* non-member seemed to be flagged
> up, not just ones in the unix group.
>
> For example, I'm pretty sure this one was:
>
> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committer/davekoelmeyer
>
> and all the others I checked in JspWiki.
>
> Looks like it is fixed now (71fe9e9?)

Ah, yes that was a regression that I also noticed and fixed.  I
thought you were talking about the
https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/group/member page, but you were
talking about individual committer pages.

The problem is that while JavaScript will treat lots of values as
false, including null, 0, '"", and [], it will treat {} as true.  So I
fixed that on the server side.  Now the client will see undefined,
which JavaScript will also treat as false.

>> There are LDAP entries in ou=services that could be used.  The cn
>> value for this service is one that the infrastructure team would
>> prefer not be widely displayed; you can see it mentioned in
>> groups.html.rb as a name to skip over when displaying groups.  But
>> first, it would be helpful to have the infrastructure team as well as
>> the secretary confirm the intent here.
>>
>>> Maybe this crept in with the recent code re-org; I don't remember
>>> noticing it earlier
>>
>> git blame is your friend:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/whimsy/blame/master/www/roster/views/members.html.rb
>>
>> - Sam Ruby

- Sam Ruby

Re: Not in members.txt - why is that classed as .not_found ?

[sebb <se...@gmail.com>]

On 6 April 2016 at 11:39, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:40 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At present, non-members are flagged with "Not in members.txt" which is
>> fine, but the text is in red.
>> That seems wrong; it's not an error to not be a member.
>
> It certainly was a surprise to me to find non-members in the ASF
> member group.  And to the secretary too; particularly as there have
> been periodic suggestions to replace members.txt with LDAP.
>
> I would like those differences to continue to be highlighted.  If we
> can find an automated way to distinguish between those that were
> intentionally added despite not being a member and unexplainable
> differences, then perhaps a different color would be warranted.

When I checked earlier today, *every* non-member seemed to be flagged
up, not just ones in the unix group.

For example, I'm pretty sure this one was:

https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committer/davekoelmeyer

and all the others I checked in JspWiki.

Looks like it is fixed now (71fe9e9?)

> There are LDAP entries in ou=services that could be used.  The cn
> value for this service is one that the infrastructure team would
> prefer not be widely displayed; you can see it mentioned in
> groups.html.rb as a name to skip over when displaying groups.  But
> first, it would be helpful to have the infrastructure team as well as
> the secretary confirm the intent here.
>
>> Maybe this crept in with the recent code re-org; I don't remember
>> noticing it earlier
>
> git blame is your friend:
>
> https://github.com/apache/whimsy/blame/master/www/roster/views/members.html.rb
>
> - Sam Ruby

Re: Not in members.txt - why is that classed as .not_found ?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:40 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At present, non-members are flagged with "Not in members.txt" which is
> fine, but the text is in red.
> That seems wrong; it's not an error to not be a member.

It certainly was a surprise to me to find non-members in the ASF
member group.  And to the secretary too; particularly as there have
been periodic suggestions to replace members.txt with LDAP.

I would like those differences to continue to be highlighted.  If we
can find an automated way to distinguish between those that were
intentionally added despite not being a member and unexplainable
differences, then perhaps a different color would be warranted.

There are LDAP entries in ou=services that could be used.  The cn
value for this service is one that the infrastructure team would
prefer not be widely displayed; you can see it mentioned in
groups.html.rb as a name to skip over when displaying groups.  But
first, it would be helpful to have the infrastructure team as well as
the secretary confirm the intent here.

> Maybe this crept in with the recent code re-org; I don't remember
> noticing it earlier

git blame is your friend:

https://github.com/apache/whimsy/blame/master/www/roster/views/members.html.rb

- Sam Ruby