\o/ https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DDOC/job/dev/5528/

Use :file: role instead of escaping *.

In D5544#140552, @anlambert wrote:

Arf, still two warnings remaining but no clear indication where they come from: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DDOC/job/dev/5526/artifact/swh-docs/docs/errors.log/*view*/

Arf, still two warnings remaining but no clear indication where they come from: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DDOC/job/dev/5526/artifact/swh-docs/docs/errors.log/*view*/

In D5544#140545, @vlorentz wrote:

Uh? That wasn't an issue for me

In D5543#140521, @anlambert wrote:

In D5543#140518, @vlorentz wrote:

Oh, looks like I forgot to submit my commit for this...

Ack, there is also a remaining warning in swh-core. I guess you must have forgot to push that fix too ?

In D5543#140518, @vlorentz wrote:

Oh, looks like I forgot to submit my commit for this...

Rebase

In T3252#63410, @ardumont wrote:

+1, can you create a task about it ? This could be handled by a GSOC student who chooses to
work on the webapp.

sure done respectively T3256 then T3257.

In T3252#63374, @zack wrote:

but adding an email field (auto filled for registered users) to send a notification after the origin was loaded seems a good tradeoff. To implement the email notification, we will have to add a journal client in swh-web processing origin visit messages.

Adding an email field is a poor UX solution (it needs to be reentered every time or saved in a cookie) which we used for the vault at the time because we didn't have user registration.
Now that we have user registration we can just tell users that if they want to be notified, they should login. (Which is indeed something independent from requiring user registration for being able to submit.) That will encourage users to register to have added-value functionalitlies, like notifications.
And then we should go back to all places that could use notifications (vault, save code now, deposit, "save again" button) and uniform things.

In D5484#140108, @vlorentz wrote:

Nice! Why the green labels/checkboxes/dropdowns?

In T3252#63334, @ardumont wrote:

As a first step towards giving more feedback for users who submitted wrong origins for
ingestion (e.g. organization links, tarballs with wrong visit type, link to html page
probably for listing, etc...). We could allow the operator which rejects the origins a
free form input field so they could explain the reason of the rejection. It'd be less
brutal a rejection.

This does not require the user registration part discussed above nor does it exclude it.

Bonus point for this, it's an easy hack ;)

As an incremental step after that, we could make that a configurable predefined template
selection box of rejecting reasons as I don't think there are so many different reasons
after all (unsupported for now, not an origin of type <type>, not a repository link,
...). Drawing stats from the first implementation could help in designing the initial
templates of rejection.

Which could be another easy hack once the first part is done (if we want).

As suggested to @anlambert recently (@antoine, given it a bit more thought and added the
second incremental part since then thus the ping ;)

In T3252#63315, @zack wrote:

Oh, and now that we have user profile pages, we should have a list of "my" save code now requests with their status visible in the user profile, for those who want to check synchronously the status of their requests (and might have disabled email notifications).

In T3252#63314, @zack wrote:

It would be desirable to provide the user with feedback that helps fix the issue.

Totally.

Now that we have a decent user registration system I think we should consider:

1. requiring user registration for submitting save code now requests (which will also provide an audit trail for users that repeatedly submit bogus if not actively harmful requests)
2. send by default email notifications about the outcome of save code now requests, both successes and failures, with the possibility of disabling email notifications in the user profile

This will make the overall UX of interacting with the archive feel much more "reliable" for users, whereas right now it feels much like a leap of faith whether it will work or not, in good part due to the lack of systematic out-of-band notifications.

Rebase

Rebase

Looks good to me.

In D5533#140271, @ardumont wrote:

why is it needed?

Rebase

Rebase

Proper fix is in D5530.

Rebase

In D5525#139958, @ardumont wrote:

lgtm

plus it matches how we do it in the bin/install (or update or both) we mention in the docs.

Looks good to me.

chardin.js library is also interesting, it creates a simple overlay to display instructions on existent elements instead of using popups.

Bootstrap Tour also looks great, simple to use, easy configuration, also a good candidate.

The intro.js library seems pretty simple to use, can be configured through JSON, can provide guided tour but also UI hints and is highly customizable.

Looks good to me.

Rebase

You can mark the file as orphan to fix the warning and avoid removing it.

Update: Validate SWHID and report any parsing errors instead of autofixing it.