Pull Requests by Zsirafovics

[Tekki]

@Zsirafovics, you've opened the following pull requests:

• Environment variables #91
• Menu HTML5, new theme #92
• login.pl refactor according to HTML5 #93
• admin.pl refactor and adjusting User.pm according to HTML5 #94

Unfortunately I'm not able to review any of them (and it would cost me hundreds of CHF to do so).
The way to contribute code changes is described here. First of all, an issue has to be opened to discuss the plan. Changes to the code start, when there is an agreement about the solution.
On the technical level, these pull requests mix unrelated topics, don't respect the structure of the software and the coding style, change code for no obvious reason and contain no tests.

So please split your ideas into small pieces and open individual issues for them.

Some random details:
If it seems necessary for you to use your own logo or another theme on the login screen, then the discussion should be around how to make this possible.
Concerning the menu, the next step should be to get rid if the .ini file format and to make everything more flexible, so that it's possible to replace the whole menu at any level (application, company, user). Without breaking the access control, of course. Then we can discuss if it's necessary to display it in a different way.

[Zsirafovics]

Fact.
The program has the interface that was expected and considered modern in the early 2000s. However, the world and user expectations have changed.
In my personal experience, most users are reluctant to use the program because it does not follow trends and is not flashy enough. Since I consider technical efficiency to be more important (and SQL-Ledger is very good at this), I don't necessarily agree with user demands, but unfortunately that's the way it is.
In addition to all this, the code contains many deprecated parts in terms of HTML5, and it is only a matter of time before browsers finally drop support for them.

I looked at possible solutions for modernization and saw three options:

1. Use some kind of framework (Bootstrap, Mojolicious, etc.)
   I rejected this because the system can only be used if the entire code is rewritten. It is not certain that this can be done within a reasonable time frame. Moreover, I think that switching to a framework would do more harm than good.
2. Perl CGI, HTML remains, CSS modernization (tokens, scopes), gradual HTML cleanup.
   This is simple and can be implemented continuously for individual components, but there are minimal limitations. For example, there will be no automatic responsive layout.
3. Hybrid: own mini-layout system, new components div + flex, old pages remain table-based, gradual migration, according to HTML5

I consider the third solution to be the most practical in the long term, and that is why I chose it.

Based on feedback, the menu is one of the most crucial aspects of the system for users.
At the same time, I believe that one of the biggest advantages is the use of menu.ini, which allows to easily and quickly create a unique menu layout for each system (i.e., each installation).
So that's where I started. However, this required creating a completely new CSS, so I added the code for the other parts as well. I removed the framework solution (replacing it with iframe), removed the inline JS, and moved the menu management to an external JS file. This solved a problem where, for example, when a given main menu (e.g., AR) is open and the user clicks on another main menu (e.g., AP), the open menu closes. I showed it to a few users and it has been very successful.
At the same time, I redesigned the structure of menu.ini, making the display a little simpler and more transparent.

A few words about the logo. The original logo was also a little outdated and was not available in a usable format. So I created a new one, keeping the basic idea. I sent it to the person who owns the rights to the DWS version (turtle) last September. He agreed to its use, so it can be included in your version as well.

Finally.
I could have simply created a fork (which I am forced to do anyway due to Hungarian-specific issues) and just put the changes in there. However, since I am using the version You created as a basis and I greatly appreciate what You have created, I thought it would be right to share it with You directly.
I apologize if I misinterpreted the documentation regarding contribution and bombarded You with my changes all at once. I thought that the parts I have now shared together constitute the first steps towards a more modern SQL-Ledger implementation.

Well, if based on the above You think You might be interested, please let me know how we should proceed.

Thanks

[Tekki]

This current issue is about the cornerstones only, so I don't comment the details (I agree with most of it, but not with all).

I'm very much interested in your contribution. And me personally, I rarely consider creating a fork to be a good solution on the long term. That's why I've always built on top of the DWS version. But that's everyone's own decision.
We should proceed the following way: You split your ideas into individual topics (like HTML 5 in general, menu in special, and so on), describe the facts for eath of them. Then we can start the discussion, find the options, assess the risks, decide about a possible solution. At this point you can start to change the code and create a pull request. You already noticed that the code quality requirements have increased a lot with version 4, so it's probably better to start with small projects first.
If the changes fulfill the expectation, they get merged into the main branch and published with the next release.

There is one thing you have to accept on your side: It's me who makes the final decisions.

I will create a beta branch as soon as I've published 4.0.2 There is a new beta branch, where we can merge the new things and test them together, before they get into the main version.

Btw., I'll add important points of such discussions to the documentation, as I've already made for the questions about the translation.

[Zsirafovics]

First, let's agree on what the goals are.
I assume You agree that the system interface also needs to be modernized, not just the code base.
What do I mean by modernization? We need to remove deprecated parts and make the system HTML5 compliant.
As I wrote, I saw three ways to do this. In the long term and in order to maintain continuous operation, I chose a hybrid solution, which means the following.

• We are creating our own mini-layout system, which is essentially a very detailed CSS file.
• In the .pl files new components are created on div+flex basis, while the old pages remain table-based temporarily.
• In addition, we are gradually migrating the system.

If we agree on these basics, I'll split my ideas into individual topics -as possible as- to start discussing about those.

If you haven't seen it yet, I attach a picture to give you an idea of what it looks like at my place now.

[Tekki]

I've asked you to create new issues, this means for the basic goals too.