local-it/mitgliederverwaltung
2
3
Fork 0
Code Issues 51 Pull requests 13 Projects 1 Releases Packages 1 Activity Actions

Fix error when deleting members #148

Merged
moritz merged 1 commit from fix-member-deletion into main 2025-10-09 16:45:42 +02:00
Conversation 1 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +32 -3
rafael commented 2025-08-21 14:34:06 +02:00
Collaborator
Copy link

Description of the implemented changes

The changes were:

  • Bugfixing
  • New Feature
  • Breaking Change
  • Refactoring

What has been changed?

There was a stream_delete call altough we don't seem to be using streams for the member overview.

Definition of Done

Code Quality

  • No new technical depths
  • Linting passed
  • Documentation is added were needed

Accessibility

  • New elements are properly defined with html-tags
  • Colour contrast follows WCAG criteria
  • Aria labels are added when needed
  • Everything is accessible by keyboard
  • Tab-Order is comprehensible
  • All interactive elements have a visible focus

Testing

  • Tests for new code are written
  • All tests pass
  • axe-core dev tools show no critical or major issues

Additional Notes

## Description of the implemented changes The changes were: - [x] Bugfixing - [ ] New Feature - [ ] Breaking Change - [ ] Refactoring <!--- Describe the goal of the PR in a few words --> ## What has been changed? <!--- List the things you changed --> There was a `stream_delete` call altough we don't seem to be using streams for the member overview. ## Definition of Done ### Code Quality - [x] No new technical depths - [x] Linting passed - [x] Documentation is added were needed ### Accessibility - [ ] New elements are properly defined with html-tags - [ ] Colour contrast follows WCAG criteria - [ ] Aria labels are added when needed - [ ] Everything is accessible by keyboard - [ ] Tab-Order is comprehensible - [ ] All interactive elements have a visible focus ### Testing - [x] Tests for new code are written - [x] All tests pass - [ ] axe-core dev tools show no critical or major issues ## Additional Notes <!--- Add any additional information for the reviewers here -->
rafael added 1 commit 2025-08-21 14:34:07 +02:00
rafael added this to the Sprint 6 - 11.09 - 02.10. project 2025-09-11 11:33:03 +02:00
requested reviews from simon, carla 2025-09-11 11:33:09 +02:00
carla added 1 commit 2025-09-25 08:49:28 +02:00
carla approved these changes 2025-09-25 08:56:46 +02:00
carla left a comment
Owner
Copy link

Looks fine, I just had this one question in the comments.

Looks fine, I just had this one question in the comments.
lib/mv_web/live/member_live/index.ex Outdated
@ -23,2 +23,3 @@
{:noreply, stream_delete(socket, :members, member)}
updated_members = Enum.reject(socket.assigns.members, &(&1.id == id))
{:noreply, assign(socket, :members, updated_members)}
carla commented 2025-09-11 13:33:52 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

Might it be performance wise an issue if we always reassign the whole list or isn't that a problem? :)

Might it be performance wise an issue if we always reassign the whole list or isn't that a problem? :)
rafael commented 2025-09-25 13:05:48 +02:00
Author
Collaborator
Copy link

Good point! Performance-wise, it would probably be good to actually use streams if we have a large number of members in this list. Although I'd say for <= 100 entries, this is not a problem, so if we choose to use pagination, I think performance-wise we'd be fine without using streams. Are we planning to use pagination in the future?

Good point! Performance-wise, it would probably be good to actually use streams if we have a large number of members in this list. Although I'd say for <= 100 entries, this is not a problem, so if we choose to use pagination, I think performance-wise we'd be fine without using streams. Are we planning to use pagination in the future?
carla commented 2025-09-26 10:19:35 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

I actually came to the same point while working on sorting. I think pagination would be a good idea, but I would take that discussion to another issue. Because there are pros and also cons about pagination. When we use pagination, end-users who are used to excel can also be irritated. If you filter and you do not realise that you have two pages of results that can be also annoying. I will open an issue to discuss that. Whats the effort to go with streams and the win? Because when we have 300-500 members it might make sense anyways?

I actually came to the same point while working on sorting. I think pagination would be a good idea, but I would take that discussion to another issue. Because there are pros and also cons about pagination. When we use pagination, end-users who are used to excel can also be irritated. If you filter and you do not realise that you have two pages of results that can be also annoying. I will open an issue to discuss that. Whats the effort to go with streams and the win? Because when we have 300-500 members it might make sense anyways?
rafael commented 2025-09-26 14:58:47 +02:00
Author
Collaborator
Copy link

I'll take a stab at implementing streams here. But I'll wait until your search MR is merged so we can prevent conflicts :)

I'll take a stab at implementing streams here. But I'll wait until your search MR is merged so we can prevent conflicts :)
carla commented 2025-10-02 12:19:58 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

Search MR is merged, @moritz let's check how to handle this

Search MR is merged, @moritz let's check how to handle this
moritz commented 2025-10-09 16:45:07 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

I would say for now it's ok to send the whole list.
Showing over 300 member on one page should be avoided anyway. I would favor pagination with a high default value. But we can discuss this further in the related issue.

I would say for now it's ok to send the whole list. Showing over 300 member on one page should be avoided anyway. I would favor pagination with a high default value. But we can discuss this further in the related issue.
carla modified the project from Sprint 6 - 11.09 - 02.10. to Sprint 7 - 02.10 - 23.10. 2025-10-02 12:20:10 +02:00
moritz force-pushed fix-member-deletion from b48038ed29 to 7d2b719ca2 2025-10-09 16:42:56 +02:00 Compare
moritz merged commit e2c00f263e into main 2025-10-09 16:45:42 +02:00
moritz deleted branch fix-member-deletion 2025-10-09 16:45:42 +02:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
simon
carla
Labels
Clear labels   
bug

Something is not working

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature

  
help wanted

Need some help

  
high priority

   
invalid

Something is wrong

  
L

5 h

  
low priority

   
M

3 h

  
medium priority

   
needs refinement

   
question

More information is needed

  
S

1 h

  
UX research

   
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No labels
bug
duplicate
enhancement
help wanted
high priority
invalid
L
low priority
M
medium priority
needs refinement
question
S
UX research
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Sprint 7 - 02.10 - 23.10.
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: local-it/mitgliederverwaltung#148
No description provided.
Delete branch "fix-member-deletion"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?