VLE Report 2015/Bugzilla closures
The following is part of the VLE Report 2015, and is a technical-procedural closure of threads relating to the VLE from 2013/4.
Procedural closures[edit | edit source]
The following Bugzilla threads were closed on 8 April 2014, formally resolving the VLE section on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org.uk:
- 15 May 2013 Bug 15 - Install & Extend the transclusion plugin for Moodle
- This bug was worked on, but the thread contains no comments later than June 2013. The work on transclusion was not documented.
- 20 August 2013 Bug 59 - VLE seems to be very slow
- Never given a comment. The VLE performance was improved in the early months of 2014.
- 17 January 2014 Bug 172 - SSO module not working with Moodle 2.6
- The developer suggestion was that the SSO module should not be fixed. It remains WMUK's objective to have it as the access route to the VLE, however.
- 17 January 2014 Bug 173 - Internal links on the VLE
- This problem after the upgrade to Moodle 2.6 was swept up in the consolidation of modules into lessons.
- 10 July 2014 Bug 284 - Moodle 2.7 upgrade in time for Wikimania
- On enquiry from Rackspace, the database server MySQL 5.5 required for Moodle 2.7 was not available, at that point.
Action on Bug 172[edit | edit source]
The implied ACTION: is to place Bug 172 back on the agenda. The context is an unresolved debate that requires a steer from communications strategy. The following questions arise:
- Will WMUK in the near future impose an access or authentication system for some or all its "public-facing" material?
- Should the WMUK wiki and blog be treated on the same footing as the VLE and ModuleWiki, if that happens?
- Should the SSO module be updated to work with some later Moodle version, and in that case which, bearing in mind bug 284 that in July 2014 hardware requirements blocked progress to Moodle 2.7?
- The issue with the SSO is presumed to be in relation to the Moodle enrolment API. Can inhouse knowledge of its operation be developed? If so, dealing with future updates should be less problematic, though that cannot be guaranteed.
- Can such knowledge be applied elsewhere for a simpler access solution, such as one based on LDAP?
- Is there a budget for the SSO module to be updated by its original author?