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

Cache type changes at OCPL #595

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

andrixnet
Copy link
Contributor

Handles changes described here: #594 and is paired with this PR at OCPL: opencaching/opencaching-pl#2087

- Removed old GeoPath Final / podcache
- changed cache id for moving & owncache
- added 4 new cache types
***
- added graphical resources, new and missing.
+ small correction in code
<li>(Types may be added or removed. Your application MUST be
prepared for any new types and may handle them as "Other".)</li>
</ul>
<p>There are even more types, but OKAPI maps them to common types
<p>Opencaching cache types are documented
<a href="https://wiki.opencaching.eu/index.php?title=Cache_types" target="_blank">here</a></p>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Everthing OKAPI developers need to know should be documented here, so it is not necessary to reference any external documentation. To avoid redundancy and all its inherent problems, I suggest to remove this reference from OKAPI docs.

@following5
Copy link
Contributor

This PR changes the internal OCPL ID of Moving caches from 8 to 9. Please be aware of the consequences of such renumbering:

  • OCPL code needs to be examined carefully for any references to cache type 8, changing it to 9. There are many places in OC code, including templates and translation tables, where cache type IDs are referenced.
  • Synchronous update of OKAPI, OCPL code and contents of 'caches' and 'cache_types' tables must be done on all OCPL sites.

I don't see any benefit by this renumbering and recommend not to do it - it just produces additional work and can introduce bugs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants