stream line delete-volunteer

[anandology]

As a quick fix to #98, the audit records associated with a user account are also deleted. The whole point of having audit records is to have complete history of events and this action violates the whole purpose.

What we need is:

• don't delete audit records when a user/volunteer is deleted
• make sure the audit records are still viewable even after the user is deleted

This can be implemented either by marking the volunteer as deleted (or setting place=null), or deleting the entry completely and set the corresponding ids in the audit records to null. The audit records also maintain a dict of data, so it is still possible to render those records even after deleting the volunteer.

[anandology]

Also @Raghavpro reported another issue with the current delete-volunteer implementation.

raghav [11:37 AM] 
@anandology: Did you try deleting a volunteer and then registering it again? You won’t be able to.
anandology [11:37 AM] 
why?
raghav [11:45 AM] 
Because pendingmember record of that user is still there.
raghav 
[11:46 AM]  
Added and commented on a Python snippet 
pending_member = PendingMember.find(email=userdata['email'])
if pending_member:
    return render_template("signup.html", userdata=None, pending_member=pending_member)
1 Comment
This check meets and you get “You’ve already applied"
anandology [11:47 AM] 
thanks for finding that bug.
anandology [11:47 AM]
The current implementation is really a quick fix. We'll have to think about something better.
anandology [11:48 AM]
I think pending_member should be deleted after the sign up is approved.

[raghavio]

Also make it so a user can't delete himself.

[anandology]

Delete volunteer is not working for volunteers added directly from the website.

see https://opbeat.com/aap/cleansweep-karnataka/errors/4/ for trackback

[raghavio]

Pending member object does not exist so removing it throws an error.
@anandology we could either add pendingmember object with approved status at the time of adding a volunteer or add a if exist check before removing it. I like the former approach. That way we can see the volunteer in approved list also.

What do you think?

[anandology]

I prefer the second one. Just check if it is not None before removing it.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Raghav Sharma [email protected]
wrote:

Pending member object does not exist so removing it throws an error.
@anandology https://github.com/anandology we could either add
pendingmember object with approved status at the time of adding a
volunteer or add a if exist check before removing it. I like the former
approach. That way we can see the volunteer in approved list also.

What do you think?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#100 (comment)
.