Repository navigation
docs: ADRs for modeling containers capability #251
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from 9 commits
2906792
b1b1a88
413b66c
0deab25
22eb1ae
db61fda
b5f05d8
9d2c62d
8648f16
80cf370
b98c02c
ccada60
778ce2b
e738778
3a28fa5
bbce789
af7dce4
506d9cd
466b450
46999f8
0c426d2
46dfa9e
d37a414
64e4db9
46e5a09
822d9a0
8646225
1f1c962
f260756
86141e5
aff8b9b
76e89d5
6ecde96
f7cc446
dc5a0a2
d0f1fc8
83f8d04
8fa418e
6fd6864
901c560
bb7c526
20688f1
7046bec
76fa742
7b18cb4
6152dba
2e945d0
728c1e7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ | ||
| 17. Modeling Containers as a Generalized Capability for Holding Content | ||
| ======================================================================== | ||
|
|
||
| Context | ||
| ------- | ||
|
|
||
| This ADR proposes a model for containers that can hold different types of content, including custom content types, and that can be used to create courses. The model defines the core structure and purpose of containers, the types of containers and content constraints, the members and relationships of containers, version control, publishing, and pruning. | ||
|
|
||
| Decisions | ||
| --------- | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Core Structure and Purpose of Containers | ||
| =========================================== | ||
|
|
||
| - A container is designed as a generalized capability to hold different types of content. | ||
| - A container is a publishable content type that holds other content types through a parent-child relationship. | ||
| - A container application will offer shared definitions for use by other container types. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm not really clear on what this third line about shared definitions means. Maybe an example would help?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think I explained it better in this comment: #251 (comment). I was referring to a Django application where the APIs and mixins that other container types would be built on. |
||
|
|
||
| 2. Container Types and Content Constraints | ||
| ========================================== | ||
|
|
||
| - A container marks any PublishableEntity, such as sections, subsections, units, or any other custom content type, as a type that can hold other content. | ||
| - Containers can be nested within other containers, allowing for complex content structures. | ||
| - Containers might be of different types, with each type potentially having different restrictions on the type of content it can hold but that will not be enforced by containers. | ||
| - Content restrictions for containers are implemented at the app layer, allowing specific container types, like Unit, to limit their members to particular content types (e.g., only Components). | ||
| - The course hierarchy Course > Section > Subsection > Unit will be implemented as relationships between containers, with each level acting as a container that holds other content. The hierarchy will be enforced by the content restrictions of each particular container but allowed to be overridden to support `0002-content-flexibility.rst`_. | ||
| - Containers will follow extensibility principles in `0003-content-extensibility.rst`_ for creating new container types or subtypes. | ||
|
|
||
| 3. Container Members and Relationships | ||
| ======================================= | ||
|
|
||
| - The members of a container can be any type of publishable content. | ||
| - Members within a container are maintained in a specific order as an ordered list. | ||
| - Containers represent their content hierarchy through a structure that defines parent-child relationships between the container and its members. | ||
| - The structure defining these relationships is anonymous, so it can only be referenced through the container. | ||
|
mariajgrimaldi marked this conversation as resolved.
Resolved
|
||
| - Containers can hold both static and dynamically generated content, including user-specific variations. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. How will "dynamically generated content" work?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. According to #240, dynamically generated content will be built on top of what the issue called "selectors". I thought we could write a different ADR for it. I'm going to create an empty ADR with some basic info at the moment, so it's clear we will address it in this PR. Although the issue calls it "dynamically selected" i.e SplitTest or Randomized content, so I believe it'd be better to change this from "static and dynamically generated" to "static and dynamic content" removing "generated".
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I removed this from the generalized container capability into the unit ADR, since it makes more sense to be there.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah, I see now:
The part that I'm struggling with is that we seem to be using a lot of complexity and work (frozen_list, initial_list) to support both pinned and unpinned versions at this base layer, and I was kind of assuming that by paying the price of that complexity, we would also be able to handle "selectors" and dynamic content. But it seems like that's going to be yet another layer on top of this. The way that "selectors" will have to deal with pinned/unpinned references and children seems very similar and I am kind of hoping that we'll be able to find some commonality and simplify this. It may be too early to know that though.
I agree with this statement. It's hard to know how good this high level design is until we see how it works with selectors.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that when I first sketched this part of the data model, my thinking was that we'd want to always pin all the entities referenced from the Variant, because we might be dynamically generating a different Variant per user–something that would make it really expensive to amend things if someone deleted an entity that was referenced in an unpinned way. I also suspect that I sketched the Selector/Variant piece before I started making the distinction between defined/initial/frozen lists, since a lot of that was added to deal with deleting members. But I agree with your point that there's more overlap here than this model is representing now. Author-defined Variants (like A/B tests) are much more like their own kind of ContainerEntityVersions. Dynamically generated Variants (like randomized subset), could be pointers to those containers + a pinned EntityList. I feel like all the fundamental pieces are there, if we just nudge things around a bit. I'll chew on it.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Am I right in thinking that variants would be a container type with special rules (author-defined or per-user) for their author-defined list shown to students? I wonder how this would work with other container types like units. |
||
| - Each container holds different states of its members (author-defined, initial, and frozen final state) to support rollback operations. | ||
| - Members can be added or removed from a container, and the container will maintain the state of the content for the previous version. | ||
| - Containers support both fixed and version-agnostic references for members, allowing members to be pinned to a specific version or set to reference the latest draft or published state. | ||
| - The latest draft or published states can be referenced by setting the version to ``None``, avoiding the need for new instances on each update. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is there a difference between specifying "latest draft" and specifying "latest published" or is there just a way to say "latest" (version=None), and whether that is draft or published depends on _______ ? EDIT: OK, from looking at the code it appears that each container (via If I have a draft
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I originally had it with just
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @ormsbee: during our latest discussion, you mentioned that having both, mainly the draft version, covered the CCX use cases where we don't necessarily control the latest draft version, so we'd want to pin it for the author's context. Do you think we should cover that case later on? We also discussed that having both would help us know which published/draft versions were in the frozen list when creating the next version, but I think that the use case could be covered by having a single reference to the current version draft or published. Would you agree?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I was mistaken there, because if the author wanted to pin to a specific version, they could do so, and then when they decided to undo that pin to get something later, they could do so with a new version of the container–no need to keep the publish versioned separate.
Yeah, I agree. I think where my head might have been going is what happens in the following scenario:
So I'm still kicking it around in my head, but I'm trying to see how things line up with Unit/Container modeling if we don't force new container versions to be created when things get deleted, and instead filter out the deleted stuff at read time. I think it could get rid of a lot of the bookkeeping needs for the model. I'm trying to sketch this out this evening to see if it fits together in a reasonable way... |
||
| - A single member (publishable entity) can be referenced by multiple containers, allowing for reuse of content across different containers. | ||
|
|
||
| 4. Version Control | ||
| ================================== | ||
|
|
||
| - A new version is created if and only if the container itself changes (e.g., title, ordering of contents, adding or removing content) and not when its content changes (e.g., a component in a Unit is updated with new text). | ||
| - When a new version is created because a member is added or removed, new references to the members are created to maintain the state of the content for the previous version. | ||
| - Changes to the order of members within a container require creating a new version with the new ordering. | ||
|
mariajgrimaldi marked this conversation as resolved.
Resolved
|
||
| - Changes in pinned published or draft states require creating a new version to maintain the state of the content for the previous version. | ||
|
mariajgrimaldi marked this conversation as resolved.
Resolved
|
||
| - Each time a new version is created because of metadata changed, its members are copied from the previous version to preserve the state of the content at that time. | ||
| - When using version-agnostic references, no new version is created when the content changes, and the reference is updated to the latest draft or published state. | ||
|
mariajgrimaldi marked this conversation as resolved.
Resolved
|
||
| - If a member is soft-deleted, the container will create a new version with the member removed. | ||
|
|
||
| 5. Publishing | ||
|
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Question: |
||
| ============= | ||
|
|
||
| - Containers can be published, allowing their content to be accessible from where the container is referenced. | ||
| - When a draft container is published, all its draft members are also published. | ||
| - Members of a container can be published independently of the container itself. | ||
| - If a member of a container is published independently, then it'd be published in the context of the container where it is referenced. | ||
|
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Should these decisions be part of this ADR as well?
|
||
|
|
||
| 1. Pruning | ||
| ========== | ||
|
|
||
| WIP | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| .. _0002-content-flexibility.rst: docs/decisions/0002-content-extensibility.rst | ||
| .. _0003-content-extensibility.rst: docs/decisions/0003-content-extensibility.rst | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ | ||
| 18. Modeling Units as a Concrete Implementation of the Container Capability | ||
|
mariajgrimaldi marked this conversation as resolved.
Resolved
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm not sure if this requires its own ADR, but it helps illustrate the decisions using a more familiar concept like units. |
||
| ======================================================================= | ||
|
|
||
| Context | ||
| ------- | ||
|
|
||
| The container capability is a generalized capability to hold different types of content. This decision focuses on modeling units as a concrete implementation of the container capability. | ||
|
|
||
| Decisions | ||
| --------- | ||
|
|
||
| All decisions from `0017-generalized-containers.rst`_ are still valid so that this decisions will build on top of them. | ||
|
|
||
| .. _`0017-generalized-containers.rst`: 0017-generalized-containers.rst | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Units as Containers | ||
| ======================= | ||
|
|
||
| - A unit is a concrete type of container that holds components. | ||
| - A unit is a container, making it also a publishable entity. | ||
| - A unit application will offer shared definitions for use by other unit subtypes. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What is a "unit application"?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think this explains it better: 46999f8 I'm specifically referring to:
From #240. Let me know if there's a better way of saying this.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you include this whole example? That really makes it more clear.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, sure! |
||
|
|
||
| 1. Unit Types and Content Constraints | ||
| ====================================== | ||
|
|
||
| - Units can only hold components as their members but will not enforce this restriction at the model level. | ||
| - Content restrictions for units are implemented at the app layer, allowing units to limit their members to components. | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Unit Members and Relationships | ||
| ================================== | ||
|
|
||
| - The members of a unit can only be components. | ||
|
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Should these decisions be part of this ADR as well?
|
||
|
|
||
| 4. Unit Versioning Management | ||
| ============================== | ||
|
|
||
| - A unit is versioned, and a new version is created if and only if the unit itself changes (e.g., title, ordering of contents, adding or removing content) and not when its content changes (e.g., a component in a unit is updated with new text). | ||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.