added organization creation/selection functionalitity to project crea…

[ThomasCarney315]

…tion page

• In the project creation page, the input field for the organization has the same autocomplete functionality as the timezone input field.
• The data for the autocomplete comes from the Organization's collection in MongoDB. Because of this, if you start with a fresh DB and have no documents in the Orgs collection, there will be no autocomplete suggestions.
• The code is written so that the organization input will be used to create an organization document in the collection if it doesn't already exist. It will then be available for suggestions.
• The code is written to prevent duplicate organization names.

@andrewquach-dev big thanks for the good use of comments throughout the code !!

[Cheesely]

I want to review this PR but I'm not totally sure what an organization is. Is this change related to any of the issues in the project space? I'm not seeing organization anywhere else in the project. (I've been a bit out of the loop lately however, so that might be why)

[ImanKahlila]

@Cheesely "organizations" are different bootcamps/schools.

[ThomasCarney315]

I want to review this PR but I'm not totally sure what an organization is. Is this change related to any of the issues in the project space? I'm not seeing organization anywhere else in the project. (I've been a bit out of the loop lately however, so that might be why)

issue #52 is where this PR comes from. The lucid chart Shcema shows that Organization(eg: 100devs, University, etc.) is one of the [details/values/fields] in the Project [entity/model/document].

The Organization itself is a [document/entity]; therefore, the Project's organization field is a reference to the organization [document/entity].

No problem, you're all good.

[andrewquach-dev]

Great job implementing the organization selection! I tweaked it a bit to make it so that the organization website input field gets auto-filled too if the organization input field was autocompleted. I think that fits the user experience better since we don't want the user to autofill the organization but type out the organization's website after.

[Cheesely]

Ok I figured out what organization is. And that makes sense. Thanks @ImanKahlila and @ThomasCarney315 for explaining that to me.

One issue I found is if person 1 adds a new project and adds an organization with a URL that is www.wrong.com, but they get the URL wrong. When person 2 comes along and fills out the organization field, the autocorrect will auto fill an incorrect URL. This is not so bad, but say if they try to fix it, by changing the URL, to www.correct.com, they will click save and think that they've fixed it, but really the organization stays the same and the URL is still www.wrong.com.

All in all, it seems strange that our users would be able to choose what the URL is for an organization that we are adding to our system. In my opinion, we should have control over that so that we can make sure it's correct. If their "organization" isn't on the list.. we could just add "other" as an option.

What do you guys think?

[ThomasCarney315]

@andrewquach-dev, that's a great feature with auto-filling the website with our current schema.

@Cheesely Yeah, I agree. That was something I was considering, and I figured we would end up crossing that bridge sooner(now) or later(a new issue). I ended up just sticking with the DB schema at the time. You are correct. Currently, the first person to create an org determines the website forever. Which is weird.

I considered these :

• -implementing an org editing feature (but how to determine who can edit ?? This could pose a real problem if anyone could edit-->scam opportunities)
• -changing the org-website to be a part of the project model so that each project creator inputs it on their own and as such can edit it if need be
• -or just removing the org-website altogether
• -or even making it an optional field for the project
• -we could control orgs which i believe creates eternal dev overhead

I suppose that the primary purpose of the org field is to eventually find people/projects based on org if someone wants. The website URL for the organization I believe is secondary.

I suppose at this point we should determine if we want to merge this and open a new issue to address this as new change or just hold a discussion and vote here in the PR.

Let me know what you all think.

[andrewquach-dev]

One option is to scratch out the website field in the model and creation page, make it so that only we can add new organizations, and create a pre-existing list of organizations. Users will be able to select from a dropdown list of organizations and we would have to manually add organizations through mongodb's website. That way users are restricted from creating their own custom organizations.

[ThomasCarney315]

Yes, that is also something to consider. Users creating organizations with ridiculous names could become an issue

[ThomasCarney315]

Okay, how about a vote?

• 🚀scratch out the website field in the model and creation page, make it so that only we can add new organizations, and create a pre-existing list of organizations. Users will be able to select from a dropdown list of organizations and we would have to manually add organizations through mongodb's website. That way users are restricted from creating their own custom organizations.
• 🎉 change the org-website to be a part of the project model so that each project creator inputs it on their own and as such can edit it if need be and maintain user ability to create and/or select orgs
• 👀 change the org-website to be a part of the Project model so that each project creator inputs it on their own project and, as such can edit it if need be and remove user ability to create orgs but can select from a predefined list
• 👎Something else

[Cheesely]

🚀

But I think we should add a property in projects for “other organization” so that people can freetype the name if they choose other from the drop-down instead of one our pre-existing ones. This would be an optional field) That way we can look at user’s responses and know if a new organization needs to be added.

And long term we can have admin functions that are only available for admin users. One of those admin functions can be

[ImanKahlila]

I wrote this in the Discord channel also, but I wanted to write it here too.

Are we able to make auto generated drop down selections for our text input fields? Example: User begins typing "100" and the drop down menu suggests "100 Devs" ? Also maybe if it isn't options to choose from when they're typing, then no drop down menu shows up? Hopefully that makes sense, lol.

[ThomasCarney315]

@Cheesely I agree with you, eliminate the website and allow project creators to freetype or select an orgname. but I think another field such as “other organization” is unnecessary as the organization field can hold the orgname whether manually typed in or selected from the prepopulated list.

@ImanKahlila Yes we can. pretty much exactly like that.

[ThomasCarney315]

Based on input so far, this is what I propose:

• completely eliminate org-website
• remove the ability for users to create/add organizations to DB
• keep the input field for the organization to where users can manually type their org name and select matching dropdown recommendations of organization names from DB (which is manually populated by devs)
• change the project model's organization property to hold the organization name rather than _id. During project creation, the name property will always be a string either from free-typed name or a recommendation selection

What does everyone think?

[ImanKahlila]

Sounds good! @ThomasCarney315

[ThomasCarney315]

Ok. I made the changes as discussed.

@Cheesely @ImanKahlila @andrewquach-dev

[ThomasCarney315]

I also moved some of the logic from the organization.js to controllers/projects.js for speed purposes

[ImanKahlila]

Should I go ahead and merge this even though we need another review?

[ThomasCarney315]

Should I go ahead and merge this even though we need another review?

No big hurry. @Cheesely @andrewquach-dev, have you had a chance to look at the changes?

[andrewquach-dev]

Should I go ahead and merge this even though we need another review?

No big hurry. @Cheesely @andrewquach-dev, have you had a chance to look at the changes?

Can we code review this part? I think it might need to be changed to this but I'm not totally sure.

[ThomasCarney315]

@andrewquach-dev . you're correct. I fixed the typo. Apparently it still worked like that though lol🤔