[Koha-bugs] [Bug 22508] Add the ability to prefill 856$u with the direct URL of the file

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=22508

--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart at bugs.koha-community.org> ---
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #24)
> You've asked for feedback from the QA team... so I'll try:
> 
> 1) QA tools:
> 
>    FAIL	  valid_template
> 		parse error -
> /home/vagrant/kohaclone/koha-tmpl/intranet-tmpl/prog/en/modules/about.tt
> line 186: unexpected token (|)
>   [% IF warnPrefBiblioAddsAuthorities || warnPrefEasyAnalyticalRecords ||
> warnPrefAnonymousPatron || warnPrefAnonymousPatron_PatronDoesNotExist ||
> warnNoActiveCurrency || QueryParserError || warnIsRootUser ||
> xml_config_warnings.size || AutoSelfCheckPatronDoesNotHaveSelfCheckPerm ||
> AutoSelfCheckPatronHasTooManyPerm || warnStatisticsFieldsError ||
> warnNoTemplateCaching || warnILLConfiguration || has_ai_issues ||
> oauth2_missing_deps || bad_yaml_prefs | warnUploadPublic %]

Erk, wrong conflict resolution in the last rebase.

> 2) Would 'direct' be more fitting than 'public' here?

Not sure, the other link is public as well :)

> 3) Documentation could be a bit more helpful, explaining what those are used
> for:
> 
> +  --upload-public-path dir  Set a user defined upload_public_path.
> +  --upload_public_url url   Set a user defined upload_public_url.
> 
> I know it's not much better for other options.

I do not think the documentation belongs to this script. Maybe we should add a
link to the manual when it has been documented?

> 4) There are still 2 remaining FIXMEs:
> 
> tools/upload-file.pl:
> 
> # FIXME The copy must be done in Koha::Uploader, but where?
> # I (Joubu) did not find a place where the file was completely written
> 
> push @$uploads, $rec # FIXME replace find with search and let the DB do that
> 
> Sadly I am the wrong person to ask this :(#

Yes, that's why I asked for feedback, also for comment 14.

> 5) I remember a lot of thought went into the current implementation, so
> wondering if there are possible risks or security issues with this approach
> that we tried to avoid by using he hash?

I cannot think of anything, but I will be happy to know if there are any.

> I will move this to BLOCKED for the moment, but ask for QA opinions on
> Monday.

Thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.