Open allisonnorman opened 3 years ago
Wondering if #241/#242 have enough overlap that one could be closed as a duplicate.
Context from Sue: "NRM decided not to ‘modernize’ the shared attachments application. But instead each app can build their own. There are two good example now available, and G+A may want to review these. FSVeg and FACTS have both already built an attachments module."
Noting from design review today this question:
Can we use Box links like this? aka, adding Box urls rather than uploading attachments. We should investigate how permanent Box perma links are. Do links remain the same if a document is moved to an "official" GMS folder?
Background Based on the user story outlined in #241 ("As someone creating a new proposal, I need a way to connect relevant docs to my proposal for others to review, so that reviewers will be able to tell whether the proposal is accurate, complete, and fundable."), we identified that we need to understand more about attachments in the current NRM system in order to understand a path forward in the Django prototype:
We'll know we're done when...
Questions
Tasks