Open Stack

On 11/11/2014 08:02 AM, Richard Jones wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At the summit last week, we developed a plan for moving forward with 
> modernising Horizon's UI using AngularJS. If you weren't at that 
> meeting and are interested in helping out with this effort please let 
> me know!
>
> The relevant etherpad from the meeting:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-horizon-contributors-meetup
>
> TL;DR: piece by piece we will replace Django views in Horizon with 
> angular views, and we're going to start with Identity
>
> First up, I'd like to ask the UX folk who raised their hands in that 
> meeting to indicate which of the Identity panes we should start with. 
> I believe a wizard was mentioned, as a way to exercise the new wizard 
> code from Maxime.
>
> At the same time, I'm looking at updating the AngularJS 
> recommendations in the wiki. I believe other aspects of the current 
> approach to angular code should also be revisited, if we're to scale 
> up to the full angular front-end envisaged. I'd appreciate if those 
> interested in this aspect in particular could contact me so we can 
> sort this out as a team!
>
> I'd like to start the design work for the new REST API layer we'll be 
> exposing to the angular application code, but that is also part of the 
> broader discussion about the structure of the angular code in the 
> Horizon application as mentioned above. Should it be a new blueprint/spec?
>
> There were some discussions around tooling. We're using xstatic to 
> manage 3rd party components, but there's a lot missing from that 
> environment. I hesitate to add supporting xstatic components on to the 
> already large pile of work we have to do, so would recommend we switch 
> to managing those components with bower instead. For reference the 
> list of 3rd party components I used in angboard* (which is really only 
> a teensy fraction of the total application we'd end up with, so this 
> components list is probably reduced):
>
>     json3
>     es5-shim
>     angular
>     angular-route
>     angular-cookies
>     angular-animate
>     angular-sanitize
>     angular-smart-table
>     angular-local-storage
>     angular-bootstrap
>     angular-translate
>     font-awesome
>     boot
>     underscore
>     ng-websocket
>
> Just looking at PyPI, it looks like only a few of those are in 
> xstatic, and those are out of date.
>
> grunt provides a lot of features for developing an angular interface. 
> In particular LiveReload accelerates development significantly. 
> There's a django-livereload but it uses tiny-lr under the hood, so 
> we're still using a node application for LiveReload support... so it 
> might make sense to just use grunt. grunt provides many other features 
> as well (wiredep integration with bower, build facilities with ngMin, 
> test monitoring and reload etc).
>
> There seemed to be agreement to move to jasmine (from qunit) for 
> writing the tests. It's not noted in the etherpad, but I recall karma 
> was accepted as a given for the test runner. For those not in the 
> meeting, angboard uses mocha+chai for test writing, but I agreed that 
> jasmine is acceptable, and is already used by Storyboard (see below).
>
> Also, phantomjs so we don't have to fire up a browser for exercising 
> (what should hopefully be an extensive) unit test suite.
>
> The Storyboard project has successfully integrated these tools into 
> the OpenStack CI environment.
>
>
>      Richard
>
> * https://github.com/r1chardj0n3s/angboard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


I am going to try to conclude what has been said in emails across this 
thread.

As Monty Taylor said, nodejs itself is not a blocker as multiple 
versions of it should not be needed by our tools. (That's also what npm 
and bower are taking care of, right?) Only thing that is required is 
that all tools/js libs we want to use would eventually have to be 
packaged. This is just a bunch of work for packagers.


Approach on using Xstatic packages vs Js tooling:

As only problem with using js tooling should be just actual packaging of 
it, I think it makes sense to use these tools and make development 
simpler then going other way around and using Xstatic packages - which 
means devs would have to care about getting stuff packaged as xstatic 
and added to the code, while maintaining proper versions and making sure 
that they work ok together. NPM and Bower do this for us. Common sense 
tells me packagers should take care of packaging.
Packaging of these tools will have to get resolved somehow anyway, as 
there will be rise in requirements of using them not just from Horizon...


Which tools should we use eventually:

Based on the contributions by Maxime, Martin and the others, I think the 
list of tools should end up as follows:

Tooling:
npm
bower
gulp
Jasmine
Karma/Protractor(?)/eslint
...?

Bower and Gulp seems to get along well 
(https://github.com/yeoman/generator-gulp-webapp)

Tastypie on the Django side

Angular modules - probably as listed in Richard's initial email + some more:
angular-ui
...


I might be wrong with my assumptions, so please feel free to disagree.

Jiri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141112/91d784e0/attachment.html>