Skip to content
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

Feature #58 - Audit trail report #209

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Apr 19, 2021
Merged

Feature #58 - Audit trail report #209

merged 15 commits into from
Apr 19, 2021

Conversation

SilviaAmAm
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #58

@SilviaAmAm SilviaAmAm marked this pull request as draft April 7, 2021 16:29
@SilviaAmAm
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SilviaAmAm commented Apr 8, 2021

An example of the PDF report with the Audit trail:
Screenshot from 2021-04-12 11-50-25

@SilviaAmAm SilviaAmAm marked this pull request as ready for review April 8, 2021 09:03
@SilviaAmAm SilviaAmAm requested review from annashamray and removed request for annashamray April 8, 2021 09:03
@SilviaAmAm SilviaAmAm marked this pull request as draft April 12, 2021 08:26
@SilviaAmAm SilviaAmAm marked this pull request as ready for review April 12, 2021 10:58
Copy link
Contributor

@annashamray annashamray left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice implementation with reusing audit trails!

The only thing which is bothering me - zaak identifications are not specified in most log entries (creating, updating and reviewing the destruction list).
For example, a record manager created a DL with two zaken A and B
The reviewer asks to remove the zaak A, and the record manager excludes it.
If they have not specified the identificatie of the zaak A in their comments, archivaris will never find out what particular zaak was excluded from the DL
I don't know if it's a necessary information or not and if it should be added to the audit trails

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
{% load i18n %}
<code class="log-item__title" title="{{ log.timestamp.isoformat }}">
<strong>[{{ log.timestamp|date:'Y-m-d H:i' }}]:</strong>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

css property font-weight can be used instead of <strong> html tag. It's not necessary to change it back but I think putting all formatting in one place (css file) is more convinient

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I made an issue for this (#222): I need to figure out how to nicely handle CSS with weasyprint, for when the HTML is converted to a PDF.

@SilviaAmAm
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Latest version of the report :)
Screenshot from 2021-04-13 17-19-44

Copy link
Contributor

@annashamray annashamray left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Very nice!

@SilviaAmAm SilviaAmAm merged commit 2133c6e into master Apr 19, 2021
@SilviaAmAm SilviaAmAm deleted the feature/58-audit-trail branch April 19, 2021 08:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants