LBRYCommunity/types
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 13 Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Add "Release Date" attribute to content #10

New issue
Closed
opened 2017-09-25 18:26:25 +02:00 by kauffj · 12 comments
kauffj commented 2017-09-25 18:26:25 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

From @tzarebczan on September 22, 2017 21:23

The Issue

The need to have a release date tag arose during LBRY YouTube sync discussions with @reillysmith . Oftentimes users will want the need to display videos on a channel according to their release date. Right now, all videos are sorted by publish date, which equates to the block they were published or updated on - this may not always be the desired sort order.

The requirement would be to add a Release Date attribute to uploaded content. If not populated, it should default to publish date (original block date if update later) - open to discussion.

System Configuration

  • LBRY Daemon version:
  • LBRY App version:
  • LBRY Installation ID:
  • Operating system:

Anything Else

Screenshots

Copied from original issue: lbryio/lbry#921

Internal Use

Acceptance Criteria

Definition of Done

  • Tested against acceptance criteria
  • Tested against the assumptions of the user story
  • The project builds without errors
  • Unit tests are written and passing
  • Tests on devices/browsers listed in the issue have passed
  • QA performed & issues resolved
  • Refactoring completed
  • Any configuration or build changes documented
  • Documentation updated
  • Peer Code Review performed
_From @tzarebczan on September 22, 2017 21:23_ <!-- Thanks for reporting an issue to LBRY and helping us improve! To make it possible for us to help you, please fill out below information carefully. Before reporting any issues, please make sure that you're using the latest version. - App releases: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/releases - Standalone daemon: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry/releases We are also available on Slack at https://slack.lbry.io --> ## The Issue The need to have a release date tag arose during LBRY YouTube sync discussions with @reillysmith . Oftentimes users will want the need to display videos on a channel according to their release date. Right now, all videos are sorted by publish date, which equates to the block they were published or updated on - this may not always be the desired sort order. The requirement would be to add a Release Date attribute to uploaded content. If not populated, it should default to publish date (original block date if update later) - open to discussion. ## System Configuration <!-- For the app, this info is in the About section at the bottom of the Help page. You can include a screenshot instead of typing it out --> <!-- For the daemon, run: curl 'http://localhost:5279/lbryapi' --data '{"method":"version"}' and include the full output --> - LBRY Daemon version: - LBRY App version: - LBRY Installation ID: - Operating system: ## Anything Else <!-- Include anything else that does not fit into the above sections --> ## Screenshots <!-- If a screenshot would help explain the bug, please include one or two here --> _Copied from original issue: lbryio/lbry#921_ ## Internal Use ### Acceptance Criteria 1. 2. 3. ### Definition of Done - [ ] Tested against acceptance criteria - [ ] Tested against the assumptions of the user story - [ ] The project builds without errors - [ ] Unit tests are written and passing - [ ] Tests on devices/browsers listed in the issue have passed - [ ] QA performed & issues resolved - [ ] Refactoring completed - [ ] Any configuration or build changes documented - [ ] Documentation updated - [ ] Peer Code Review performed
KamilPiekutowski commented 2017-10-11 07:36:10 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Is anyone working on this?

Is anyone working on this?
tzarebczan commented 2017-10-11 14:28:57 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

I don't believe so. We may want @reillysmith to chime in regarding the defaulting logic.

I don't believe so. We may want @reillysmith to chime in regarding the defaulting logic.
kauffj commented 2017-10-11 15:44:54 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

There should be no default. If not provided, release date should be null.

Application logic or the daemon can fall back to the published at time if that is the appropriate action, but this can be done at retrieval time rather than at write time.

There should be no default. If not provided, release date should be null. Application logic or the daemon can fall back to the published at time if that is the appropriate action, but this can be done at retrieval time rather than at write time.
KamilPiekutowski commented 2017-10-17 01:56:46 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

It looks like it requires some field for release date in lbry-app.

It looks like it requires some field for release date in lbry-app.
tzarebczan commented 2017-10-17 01:59:43 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Yes, the field would need to be added to the publish screen and places we display claim information.

Yes, the field would need to be added to the publish screen and places we display claim information.
KamilPiekutowski commented 2017-10-17 02:01:24 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

I can work on it.
It is similar to adding content duration.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Thomas Zarebczan notifications@github.com
wrote:

Yes, the field would need to be added to the publish screen and places we
display claim information.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/lbryio/lbryschema/issues/19#issuecomment-337077774,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMb-jetY7Ofua83wGx1LuEc3UJ2vvJeXks5ss-3wgaJpZM4Pi_7X
.

I can work on it. It is similar to adding content duration. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Thomas Zarebczan <notifications@github.com> wrote: > Yes, the field would need to be added to the publish screen and places we > display claim information. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/lbryio/lbryschema/issues/19#issuecomment-337077774>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMb-jetY7Ofua83wGx1LuEc3UJ2vvJeXks5ss-3wgaJpZM4Pi_7X> > . >
tzarebczan commented 2017-10-17 02:15:59 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

I believe so, yes.

I believe so, yes.
tzarebczan commented 2018-04-17 23:01:40 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@KamilPiekutowski any interest in picking this back up, along with the other metadata?

@KamilPiekutowski any interest in picking this back up, along with the other metadata?
KamilPiekutowski commented 2018-04-17 23:06:09 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Sure I can work on it.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Thomas Zarebczan notifications@github.com
wrote:

@KamilPiekutowski https://github.com/KamilPiekutowski any interest in
picking this back up, along with the other metadata?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/lbryio/lbryschema/issues/19#issuecomment-382144642,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMb-jbSH5F-zPo0TsbDKx4Ef77SmW7zNks5tplg2gaJpZM4Pi_7X
.

Sure I can work on it. On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Thomas Zarebczan <notifications@github.com> wrote: > @KamilPiekutowski <https://github.com/KamilPiekutowski> any interest in > picking this back up, along with the other metadata? > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/lbryio/lbryschema/issues/19#issuecomment-382144642>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMb-jbSH5F-zPo0TsbDKx4Ef77SmW7zNks5tplg2gaJpZM4Pi_7X> > . >
alyssaoc commented 2018-11-19 20:29:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

consider after signatures

consider after signatures
shyba commented 2019-01-23 01:34:47 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

isnt this a duplicate of #13 ?

isnt this a duplicate of #13 ?
tzarebczan commented 2019-01-25 14:31:11 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Yes, closing.

Yes, closing.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
master
add-hub-proto
comments
support_proto
channel_field_rename
claim_list_etc
update_go_files
minor_changes
proto3
proto3_continue
release_time
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels   
area: devops

   
area: discovery

   
area: docs

   
area: livestream

   
area: proposal

Work is part of a proposal

  
consider soon

Discuss this issue at the next planning meeting, then remove this label

  
Epic

   
good first issue

   
hacktoberfest

Welcome to Hacktoberfest

  
help wanted

   
icebox

Long-term storage

  
level: 1

No knowledge of the existing code required

  
level: 2

Some knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 3

Significant knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 4

Intimate knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
needs: exploration

Solution unclear, needs research

  
needs: grooming

Issue needs to be groomed before work can start

  
needs: priority

Priority level needs to be defined

  
needs: repro

Issue needs step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce in latest code

  
needs: tech design

Needs technical design signoff before implementation can begin

  
on hold

Temporarily paused

  
priority: blocker

Issue is blocking release, do ASAP

  
priority: high

Work needs to be moved into sprint ASAP

  
priority: low

Work should be done but can stay in the backlog for now

  
priority: medium

Work needs to be done within 2-3 sprints

  
resilience

   
Tom's Wishlist

   
type: bug

Existing functionality is wrong or broken

  
type: discussion

A conversation. No specific changes requested

  
type: improvement

Existing (or partially existing) functionality needs to be changed

  
type: new feature

New functionality that does not exist yet

  
type: refactor

Minimal user-visible changes, but significant internal work

  
type: task

Either work that's not related to the code, or a small chore that does not fit into other categories

  
type: testing

Solution needs additional user testing

  
unplanned

Work that was not planned into the spirnt, took priority over planned work

No labels
area: devops
area: discovery
area: docs
area: livestream
area: proposal
consider soon
Epic
good first issue
hacktoberfest
help wanted
icebox
level: 1
level: 2
level: 3
level: 4
needs: exploration
needs: grooming
needs: priority
needs: repro
needs: tech design
on hold
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
resilience
Tom's Wishlist
type: bug
type: discussion
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
type: testing
unplanned
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: LBRYCommunity/types#10
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?