I *think* what I'm observing is that:
1. The zone restrictions are different between these items.
2. The zone restrictions *change* when reloading the page sometimes. (I
assume from remodeling?)
3. The items look very buggy on many pets, because many appearances
seem to expect different zone restrictions than the item actually
has.
I think what this means is:
1. TNT has finally unbound restricted zones from the item level, and
allowed different appearances to have different restrictions. Neat!
2. The API still serves it the same way, as a field on the item.
So I think this means we need to update our schema to reflect the fact
that an item's `zones_restrict` field isn't *really* a property of the
item; it's a property of the combination of the item and the current
body ID.
My gut take here is that maybe this means it's time for the Large
Refactor that I've kinda been interested in for a while, but been
avoiding because of Impress 2020 compatibility issues: instead of a
`body_id` field on assets, and having them directly belong to items,
make an `ItemAppearance` record (closer to how 2020's GQL API modeled
it, I was looking ahead to this possibility!) that's keyed on item and
body ID, and assets belong to *that*.
Then, we could move the zones restriction field onto the
`ItemAppearance` record instead. And then it doesn't really matter to
us how TNT models it internally; whatever we saw is what we use.
(Again, I looked ahead to this in the 2020 app, and tried to use the
`restrictedZones` field on `ItemAppearance` when possible—even though
it secretly just reads directly from the `Item`!)
…but that's a pretty big departure from how things are modeled now, and
isn't something we can just throw together—especially coordinating it
across both apps. I was getting close to being able to shut off 2020
from a *front-facing* perspective (but still keeping a lot of the GQL
endpoints open for the wardrobe-2020 frontend), but I don't think we're
very close to being able to try to target turning off 2020's *backend*
as a prereq to this; or at least, if we do, we should expect that to
take a while. (Counting now, there's still 9 GQL queries—not as many as
I expected tbh, but still quite a few.)
So idk how to sequence this! But for now, let's put out a warning, and
start setting expectations.
Okay, so I still don't know why rendering is just so slow (though
migrating away from item translations did help!), but I can at least
cache entire closet lists as a basic measure.
That way, the first user to see the latest version of a closet list
will still need just as much time to load it… but *only* the ones that
have changed since last time (rather than always the full page), and
then subsequent users get to reuse it too!
Should help a lot for high-traffic lists, which incidentally are likely
to be the big ones belonging to highly active traders!
One big change we needed to make was to extract the `user-owns` and
`user-wants` classes (which we use for trade matches for *the user
viewing the list right now*) out of the cached HTML, and apply them
after with Javascript instead. I always dislike moving stuff to JS, but
the wins here seem. truly very very good, all things considered!
From an era when we didn't have that! Now we do!
(My motivation is that I'm trying to add new JS to this page and errors
in stickUp are crashing the page early, womp womp!)
Impress 2020 has had this for a while, I've wanted it for reference on
occasion, let's bring it in!
Very similar logic, and Ruby & Rails's date affordances are super
helpful for simplifying how to express it!
The homepage used to point to old projects that don't work anymore
anyway! This is the only project that stuck, so just redirect here!
We also remove the openneo.net link from the footer, because there's
nothing useful to say there anymore!
It hasn't been updated in a long time, let's just be rid of it!
It's possible I'll replace it with another blog sometime if we get the
chance to do more development work, it could be a useful way to improve
communication—but not yet!
Mostly this is just me testing out what it would look like to
modularize the app more… I've noticed that some concerns, like
fundraising, are just not relevant to most of the app, and being able
to lock them away inside subfolders feels like it'll help tidy up
long folder lists.
Notably, I haven't touched the models case yet, because I worry that
might be a bit more complex, whereas everything else seems pretty
well-isolated? We'll try it out!
A little architecture trick here! DTI 2020 authorizes support staff
requests by means of a secret token, instead of user account stuff. And
our support tools still all call DTI 2020 APIs.
So here, we bridge the gap: we copy DTI 2020's support secret to this
app's environment variables (I needed to update
`deploy/files/production.env` and run `bin/deploy:setup` for this!),
then users with the new `support_secret` flag have it added to their
HTML documents in the meta tags. Then, the JS reads the meta tag.
I also fixed an issue in the `deploy/setup.yml` playbook, where I had
temporarily commented some stuff out to skip steps one time, and forgot
to uncomment them after oops lol!
To activate this, I created a `.env.development` file in my project
root, with the following content:
```env
IMPRESS_2020_ORIGIN=http://localhost:4000
```
Then, I started impress-2020 with `yarn dev --port=4000`.
Now, the app loads from there, hooray!! It even fixes that obnoxious
pet state ID bug that happens when you run against the production db lol
Using good ol'-fashioned cookies! The JS sets it, and then Rails reads
it on pageload. That way, there's no flash of content for it to load in
after JS loads.
If your first wanted list was created before your first owned list,
then `false` would come before `true` in the keys of
`current_user_lists`.
I both fixed this to be more consistent at the model level, because who
likes unpredictable behavior? But also downstream at the view I
hardcoded that true should come before false, because that's a UI
concern that I want to be encoded in the view regardless of what's
upstream.
It was a bit tricky to figure out the right API for this, since I'm
looking ahead to the possibility of splitting these across multiple
pages with more detail, like we do in DTI 2020.
What I like about this API is that the caller gets to apply, or not
apply, whatever scopes they want to the underlying hanger set (like
`includes` or `order`), without violating the usual syntax by e.g.
passing it as a parameter to a method.
I guess I deleted this a while ago without really noticing… I think I'd
at some point like to replace this with like, the DTI 2020 improved
table layout thing, but I figured this would be pretty quick to throw
in and make the page not feel like a pain to use lmao
Oh yeah, a long-standing limitation. Good thing we're better at stuff
now!
This is also probably the real cause of the weird number of slight
discrepancies between main DTI and DTI 2020 when I eyeballed stuff lol
oh, well, that and the missing default-lists. A bit messy!
