Hello! On the train the other day I had some ideas about the way data input could work for a "last verified" field for OpenGuides. I drew a thing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kake_pugh/7278918078/
This would result in three pieces of data, which will be stored if and only if the "re-confirm existence?" tickybox is ticked:
- the date on which the existence of the business described was last checked (it should be possible to give either a specific day or just the month)
- the method by which it was checked (free text, e.g. "phoned them up", but with a tickybox or two to make it easy to give standard reasons such as "went past and saw it open" - a tick in this box would be turned into text by the code before storing in the database)
- the person who checked it (not explicitly entered on the form, but taken from the username of the person performing the edit - see above, this only happens if they explicitly choose to "re-confirm existence")
Anyone got any thoughts on the above?
Regarding the backend, here is some previous discussion on the point: http://lists.openguides.org/pipermail/openguides-dev/2007-June/001872.html
Dom points out in that post that there are two ways of doing it: - as Wiki::Toolkit metadata - as a new field in the node/content tables
Advantages of doing it as metadata: - No need to change Wiki::Toolkit databases in a way that is irrelevant to some wikis. - The "method of checking" data is really OpenGuides-specific, so should go in the metadata table, and then it would be nice to have the "date of checking" in there as well. Also, the "person who checked" data needs to go somewhere (this isn't always the same as the "person who last edited"). Then again, we already have a small inconsistency in that "date last edited" and "person who last edited" are in different tables.
Advantages of doing it in the node/content tables: - We can store it as a proper date type, which saves some fiddling around in terms of actually using the data.
Actually it strikes me that a third possibility would be to use plugins: https://metacpan.org/module/Wiki::Toolkit::Plugin
though the Wiki::Toolkit plugin system never really got fully developed, and this might be an overcomplicated way of doing it for little benefit.
Thoughts?
Kake