search

HTBox / allReady

This repo contains the code for allReady, an open-source solution focused on increasing awareness, efficiency and impact of preparedness campaigns as they are delivered by humanitarian and disaster response organizations in local communities.
http://www.htbox.org/projects/allready
MIT License
891 stars 627 forks source link

Add support for "Type D: Deploymnent Manged" activities #508

Closed mmoore99 closed 8 years ago

mmoore99 commented 8 years ago

This is sub issue of #504

For this type of activity the following is true:

mmoore99 commented 8 years ago

I am currently working on this issue.

mmoore99 commented 8 years ago

@tonysurma (cc: @OhMcGoo, @BillWagner) Please review the example stucture for a DeploymentManaged activity below and let me know if it correctly depicts what you would like to implement. Thanks. @tonysurma, if you don't respond I will have to sick @SeanFeldman on you! :wink:

DeploymentManaged Activity Structure:

SeanFeldman commented 8 years ago

I will have to sick @SeanFeldman on you!

Looks like my reputation is well established :cop:

mmoore99 commented 8 years ago

@tonysurma any feedback on the activity structure in above comment?

tonysurma commented 8 years ago

I will look at this later, my apologies but grown up responsibilities and all got the better of my schedule this week

tonysurma commented 8 years ago

Hello @mmoore99, this all looks good and right and thanks for breaking it out to make it clear. The only potential 'add' I would think (which you may already implicitly have in there) is that 'maybe' you would have DeploymentTask reference the Task to show the relationship of the Task from which the 'pool' of volunteers come from e.g.:

mmoore99 commented 8 years ago

@tonysurma thanks for the feedback.

I think I may have confused the issue by using the term DeploymentTask. That is actually the same Task instance as shown in the list of tasks, not different.

tonysurma commented 8 years ago

@mmoore99 perfect!

tonysurma commented 8 years ago

@mmoore99 would you consider this still open or covered by merged PRs? Thx

mmoore99 commented 8 years ago

@tonysurma this issue is still open. Based on the presentation that you made during the last "stand up" video I have refrained from doing any further work on this issue since it sounded like the terminology and approach would be changing. In addition, most of the work left in this issue is UI related and it sounded lik you and @OhMcGoo had some ideas about how that should be approached. So, I am on hold pending further input on these issues. Let me know if you don't agree with this approach.

tonysurma commented 8 years ago

thanks @mmoore99 I and Mari will get the updated requirements on this up today/tomorrow at the standup by the latest. Thx again

tonysurma commented 8 years ago

To your point @mmoore99 this is now superceded by #709 and we will work on that issue definition and #697 for Itinerary (now Deployment) Campaigns as evolved by UX discussions with users. Thx

robrich commented 8 years ago

As it's superceded by #709, should we close this?