Skip to content

Conversation

@asteiner-swisstopo
Copy link

@asteiner-swisstopo asteiner-swisstopo commented Aug 18, 2025

This was generated with a beta version of a tool developped by Puzzle ITC on behalf of the the Federal Chancelory: https://puzzle.github.io/publiccode-editor/

I added all I could imagine to be possibly of use, just to have a first example showcasing the possibilities.

Debatable:

  • softwareVersion/releaseDate: Do we really want to add that? We would have to adapt the CI to update that automatically.
  • usedBy: Probably better to keep that empty usage goes far beyond that.
  • description: I just added the English version (en) but we could easily also add other languages (DE, FR, IT). Not sure if worth the effort though as the target audience is probably tech-savvy.
  • longDescription: I did not invest much here, this is generated by an LLM.
  • features: From the top of my head and probably too much already. Someone from support could certainly phrase this better.
  • screenshots: Probably we could have a more representative screenshot, I just chose an iconic location that looks nice.
  • videos: It's our most recent video about embedding with an iframe, so not really a good overview video. Unfortunately, the only overview video we have is over 7 years old and is not representative anymore.

Test link

This was generated with a beta version of a tool developped by Puzzle ITC on behalf of the the Federal Chancelory: https://puzzle.github.io/publiccode-editor/

I added all I could imagine to be possibly of use, just to have a first example showcasing the possibilities.

Debatable:

- `softwareVersion`/`releaseDate`: Do we really want to add that? We would have to adapt the CI to update that automatically.
- `usedBy`: Probably better to keep that empty as usage goes probably far beyond that.
- `description`: I just added the English version (`en`) but we could easily also add other languages. Not sure if worth the effort though as the target audience is probably tech-savvy.
- `longDescription`: I did not invest much here, this is generated by an LLM.
- `features`: Just from the top of my head. Probably too much in depth already. Someone from support could probably phrase this better.
- `videos`: It's our most recent video about embedding with an iframe, so not really a good overview video. Unfortunately, the only overview video we have is over 7 years old and is not representative anymore.
@cypress
Copy link

cypress bot commented Aug 18, 2025

web-mapviewer    Run #5726

Run Properties:  status check passed Passed #5726  •  git commit bec0f30cdc: PB-1911 Remove usedBy
Project web-mapviewer
Branch Review feat-PB-1911-add-publiccode-yml
Run status status check passed Passed #5726
Run duration 07m 26s
Commit git commit bec0f30cdc: PB-1911 Remove usedBy
Committer Alexander Steiner
View all properties for this run ↗︎

Test results
Tests that failed  Failures 0
Tests that were flaky  Flaky 0
Tests that did not run due to a developer annotating a test with .skip  Pending 20
Tests that did not run due to a failure in a mocha hook  Skipped 0
Tests that passed  Passing 260
View all changes introduced in this branch ↗︎

@asteiner-swisstopo asteiner-swisstopo marked this pull request as draft August 20, 2025 07:05
For starters, we don't want to modify our CI to update the version.

We don't have an up-to-date overview video of the software, so we remove the link.
@asteiner-swisstopo asteiner-swisstopo marked this pull request as ready for review September 24, 2025 10:06
@asteiner-swisstopo asteiner-swisstopo requested review from GeoPhilo and removed request for boecklic September 24, 2025 10:07
Copy link

@GeoPhilo GeoPhilo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have adjusted the usage (usedby). Otherwise, it's OK for me.
In general, I'm just wondering whether it's really worth it now (we're going to freeze the code for the viewer soon anyway / change the tech docs / etc.) and whether it wouldn't be better to start the publiccode.yaml with the new SWISSGEO viewer right away.

The field `usedBy` is defined as

> A list of the names of prominent public administrations (that will serve as “testimonials”) that are currently known to the software maintainer to be using this software.

So "Various federal offices" is not specific enough to add any value.
@asteiner-swisstopo
Copy link
Author

I have adjusted the usage (usedby). Otherwise, it's OK for me. In general, I'm just wondering whether it's really worth it now (we're going to freeze the code for the viewer soon anyway / change the tech docs / etc.) and whether it wouldn't be better to start the publiccode.yaml with the new SWISSGEO viewer right away.

Thanks! I have removed the usedBy as "Various federal offices" is not specific enough to match its definition.

You are right that the moment is not ideal. The OSS catalog by the chancellery is going to be publicly announced at the beginning of December, so it's going to be in Swisstopo's interest to be listed there even if some things might change soon. Also, we can reuse this file as a template for SWISSGEO. So I propose to merge this anyway.

@asteiner-swisstopo
Copy link
Author

asteiner-swisstopo commented Oct 20, 2025

For the record: We cannot merge this to develop before the next deploy in November because of a temporary change in the CI.

The CI was adapted such that it is compatible with branch develop_typescript, so the build here fails in stage building_deploying with:

[Container] 2025/10/20 12:52:12.458485 Running command ${DEPLOY_SCRIPT} -s ${DEPLOY_TARGET} -l ./packages/viewer/dist/${BUILD_TYPE_1} ${TEST_LINK} --no-profile
[0;31m--local-src ./packages/viewer/dist/dev must point to an existing directory[0m

The change in the CI is going to be reverted by @pakb on the next deploy around the beginning of November. That is when we can relaunch the build of our branch here and merge to develop.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants