Review Board 1.7.22


Addressed Issues related to previous review request: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3449/

Review Request #3462 - Created Jan. 11, 2012 and updated

Ankur Goyal
Reviewers
rave
marpierc
rave
Addressed the following issues:-
-> added test class for UserInfoController
-> added links for home, admin interface and store
-> added Dutch Translations to messages_nl.properties

Yes, I am assuming status to be single/married for now.

 
Posted (Jan. 11, 2012, 10:02 p.m.)

   

  
This won't work for new accounts, which don't have display names.  Use username instead or else we need to change the new account forms.
  1. I can keep a check on that, like if display name is not provided then use the user name. Similar to what is done in page.jsp header.
What is body content supposed to be?
  1. It can be things like, by default it can show the search button for the user to search friends and if he wants to edit his profile information such as basic information, we can have a link or a button on that tab (menu) which will refresh the body content and make the editor for basic information visible.
    
    But for now I kept it empty as these features are for other tickets.
Note the widget store and admin interface header.jsp files should be modified to also have a link to the profile. Or better, all of these header pages should be consolidated.
New accounts don't have display names.  Probably this should be added to the New Account form, so not a problem with the current patch.

I'd like to see something nicer looking, like the Google+ profile layout: "about", "posts", "friends", etc.  We only have about information now, but I suggest laying out the full profile. We can disable parts for now and then fill in later.
Users should be able to update this information.
  1. Shouldn't this be set as a new sub task?
(Again) I think you want to go ahead and make a full profile layout (Facebook or G+ style) and use placeholders for features that aren't available yet.  It would look nicer.
Need to add jasmine tests.
Shouldn't use hard coded background color.
Posted (Jan. 13, 2012, 4:19 p.m.)
Oops -- I didn't realize that this review request was a follow up to a previously posted review request -- I just added comments on the previous review request here:

https://reviews.apache.org/r/3449/

although I think those comments still apply.  

You should be able to respond to feedback and post subsequent patches without needing to create an entirely new review -- let us know if you have trouble finding the right places to do that and we can help out.