Feat/ownership requests #740
Conversation
backend/clubs/admin.py
Outdated
| "person__username", | ||
| "person__email", | ||
| "club__name", | ||
| "club__pk", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
club_pk might not be as useful as a search field
| @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ | |||
| # Generated by Django 5.0.4 on 2024-10-06 05:12 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of creating a merge file, would recommend deleting this, merging the latest changes from master, and remaking the migration file. After doing this, you might have to fake the migration locally in order to reach a consistent state.
backend/clubs/models.py
Outdated
| @@ -1122,6 +1122,54 @@ class Meta: | |||
| unique_together = (("person", "club"),) | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| class OwnershipRequest(models.Model): | |||
| """ | |||
| Used when users request ownership from the owner | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: would suggest saying something like "Represents a user's request to take ownership of a club"
backend/clubs/models.py
Outdated
| person = models.ForeignKey(get_user_model(), on_delete=models.CASCADE) | ||
| club = models.ForeignKey(Club, on_delete=models.CASCADE) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In general, it's good practice to define a related_name for foreign key fields. Also nit: would suggest renaming person field to something like requester
backend/clubs/models.py
Outdated
| person = models.ForeignKey(get_user_model(), on_delete=models.CASCADE) | ||
| club = models.ForeignKey(Club, on_delete=models.CASCADE) | ||
|
|
||
| withdrew = models.BooleanField(default=False) |
backend/clubs/views.py
Outdated
| ) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class OwnershipRequestOwnerViewSet(XLSXFormatterMixin, viewsets.ModelViewSet): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need the XLSXFormatterMixin here? Don't foresee there being enough ownership requests for them to be exported to CSV
backend/clubs/views.py
Outdated
| return Response({"success": True}) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class OwnershipRequestSuperuserAPIView(generics.ListAPIView): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm in favor of consolidating this view into the previous one and renaming it OwnershipRequestManagementViewSet. You should then be able to create a separate route under this viewset to achieve the same functionality. @aviupadhyayula lmk what you think about this
| @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ | |||
| <!-- TYPES: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: ownership_request.html, and rename request.html to membership_request.html
| {% extends 'emails/base.html' %} | ||
|
|
||
| {% block content %} | ||
| <h2>Ownership Request from <b>{{ full_name }}</b> for <b>{{ club_name }}</b></h2> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: Request for ownership for club_name from full_name
|
|
||
| {% block content %} | ||
| <h2>Ownership Request from <b>{{ full_name }}</b> for <b>{{ club_name }}</b></h2> | ||
| <p style="font-size: 1.2em"><b>{{ full_name }}</b> sent an ownership request to join <b>{{ club_name }}</b> through the Penn |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: ...has submitted a request for ownership of club_name...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR, this looks like a great start! Rohan was (very) thorough, not much to add. One last nit: consider updating the PR's title and description to be a little more descriptive. (Take a look at past PRs for examples.) It's a small detail, but when you're reviewing code years in the future, it's great to understand what the author was thinking.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #740 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 71.80% 71.56% -0.24%
==========================================
Files 31 31
Lines 6901 7013 +112
==========================================
+ Hits 4955 5019 +64
- Misses 1946 1994 +48 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Make Ownership Requests feature with new model OwnershipRequest.