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

Modify civic-json-worker API to work for any city / group #20

Open
jpvelez opened this issue Feb 11, 2014 · 4 comments
Open

Modify civic-json-worker API to work for any city / group #20

jpvelez opened this issue Feb 11, 2014 · 4 comments

Comments

@jpvelez
Copy link
Contributor

jpvelez commented Feb 11, 2014

This civic tech project tracking API is generically useful infrastructure. Instead of having people deploy their own versions of this API, which has proven difficult, we should just modify this service to work for multiple civic hacking groups and cities.

Our API is already up and running. Civic hacking groups would just need to submit their repo urls to the endpoint from their websites. The system would hit the Github API and get additional repo details, just like it's doing for Chicago. Brigades could then request a list of their projects to display on their own project pages.

Here's what would need to happen, as far as I can tell. (@evz, please jump in):

  • The add project endpoint would need to require 'city' and 'group' params for url submissions, and store these along with the url.
  • Add city and group field to the complete project_details.json file. Project pages could then pull only projects for only their cities / groups.
@jpvelez
Copy link
Contributor Author

jpvelez commented Feb 13, 2014

Hey @amoskane and @ondrae, instead of going off and trying to adapt / deploy your own versions of civic-json-workers, how about you help @evz turn this project into a central API that can work for all brigades and cities?

Way more brigades will use get on board if all they have to do to start tracking projects is sent a GET request to an already-existing endpoint, instead of having to hack on their own projects. This way, project data will also all end up in one place, enabling all kinds of applications. And lastly, this would be one of the few instances on record of civic hackers ACTUALLY embracing that open source and collaboration thing. ;)

Thoughts?

@spjika
Copy link

spjika commented Feb 13, 2014

We'd be down to promote this in Oakland and hopefully help move it.

@amoskane
Copy link

Sounds super smart to me. :)

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Juan-Pablo Velez <[email protected]

wrote:

Hey @amoskane https://github.com/amoskane and @ondraehttps://github.com/ondrae,
instead of going off and trying to adapt / deploy your own versionshttps://github.com/ondrae/civic-json-worker/commit/ff2d7ad0cddfc4822fadcebe43b9f7b3c16d69e1of civic-json-workers, how about you help
@evz https://github.com/evz turn this project into a central API that
can work for all brigades and cities?

Way more brigades will use get on board if all they have to do to start
tracking projects is sent a GET request to an already-existing endpoint,
instead of having to hack on their own projects. This way, the data will
also all be in one place, enabling all kinds of applications. And lastly,
this would be one of the first instances of record of us all ACTUALLY
embracing that open source and collaboration thing. ;)

Thoughts?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/20#issuecomment-34957473
.

@migurski
Copy link

What about tracking projects within a Git repo, here? The API could be read-only, the add-project endpoint could go away, and Git itself could be the mechanism by which new projects get added. All data storage linked to this project (files on S3, data in a DB) would be transient, and regenerated on a scheduled basis multiple times per day from federated, external sources run by the brigades.

Thoughts?

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants