Open jonespm opened 5 years ago
@jonespm Hello, I am a student enrolled in EECS 481: Software Development this semester and would like to contribute to this issue. Is the model/migration concern noted above an active roadblock, or are we free to tackle it?
@jonespm I defer to you on this--I know this is an old issue, not sure if we're still interested in doing it.
I think this would still be worthwhile to do but I'm really not sure of the effort. I think the biggest thing would be migrating the events to the new table (via a more manual migration) and renaming the variables and mapping the note that doesn't have a 1:1.
This might end up being more work that you expect but I'm not sure yet. It does have a pretty straightforward map really, aside from the note->extra.
Tracking | Pinax |
---|---|
user | user |
name | action (Pinax is limited to 100 but that's fine) |
timestamp | timestamp |
note | extra (This is json in Pinax) |
related_content_type | content_type |
related_object_id | object_id |
related_object | obj |
There's internal code here for trackign events. I believe this could be removed and switched to the better supported "Pinax event log". The methods look really similar. We'd have to see how the database model compares and how we'd do that migration if this did happen.
https://github.com/pinax/pinax-eventlog