Closed GraylinKim closed 11 years ago
GraylinKim, we appreciate the feedback, and we are well aware that as-is the tool is little more than a proof-of-concept. The API for our data source is broken/buggy for fields that we need for more robust version selection, so these fixes (and others) await external change before becoming feasible.
Sure, I am just filing the ticket for later.
The current API could be used to do this though. Waiting for improvements isn't strictly necessary.
Granted, we know enough to work around the current API bug, I think we just prefer to wait until the fix comes (since we know who maintains the back-end that produces the bug and he's likely to push out the fix in a matter of days), rather than build out code on a kludge that presumes some details about the legislative data that we haven't strictly verified as correct.
Personally, I'm focusing on a couple changes that will be very likely needed once we have more robust API data but which are independent of the exact mechanism by which it's gathered ("good" API or work-around).
However, I shouldn't act like I speak for everyone, so any place where I allude to the larger group read that as "Clay vaguely recalls an unofficial, approximate consensus along these lines..." :-P
We already pull down all the related amendments and their bill information. It'd be nice to extend the header options to allow a user to choose (with good defaults) which things are diffed in the area below.
Traditional diff tools just handle this by requiring two input file arguments. We could do something similar with two select boxes, each populated with [Law, Bill, Amendment, ..., Amendment] according to the bill specified by the user.
I may have partially addressed this in the Amendment Dropdowns branch.
This branch has been merged.
This is especially not useful for bills that have 3+ amendments.