Remove gem awesome_nested_set

[mkllnk]

What we should change and why (this is tech debt)

It's providing a tree structure for Spree::Taxon but we don't use the tree structure. I think that the UI is actually not saving it when you try. If we ever wanted a tree structure in the future, it would be better to use ancestry for it's simpler design and better update performance.

There are several related issues that may be resolved at the same time:

• Remove jquery.jstree from the taxonomy page #9677
• Super admin: Changing the order of taxons is not working #9386
• Errors when deleting (and creating?) taxonomies #6033

Context

• chore(deps): bump awesome_nested_set from 3.5.0 to 3.6.0 #11631

Impact and timeline

No significant impact at the moment. But simplifying code always reduces maintenance and performance.

[HillaryOkello]

Can I work on this?

[sigmundpetersen]

Sure thanks @HillaryOkello , go ahead 🙂

[HillaryOkello]

I created a PR for this issue but I'm having an issue with the tests, I'm working on fixing them. I would appreciate some help #11808

[sigmundpetersen]

Yes, thank you @HillaryOkello
The PR is waiting on code review, so you will get feedback from a dev as soon as they get to it 👍

[HillaryOkello]

Thank you for the response @sigmundpetersen
I will keep trying to fix them as I wait for a code review 😄 👍

[HillaryOkello]

Hello @sigmundpetersen,

Sorry, I've taken too long on this issue. I took a break and I'm back now.
However, I find this issue to be more complicated because many changes are required and removing some pieces of code is affecting some areas I don't understand quite well yet.

Is it okay if I pick another issue to work on?

[sigmundpetersen]

Hey @HillaryOkello
Sure, no worries! Just pick another one 👍

[sigmundpetersen]

Thank you for your efforts on this one and thanks for the feedback!

[thebigw4lrus]

hey @sigmundpetersen I want to take over this one to warm up. WDYTH?

[sigmundpetersen]

Sure thanks @thebigw4lrus , go ahead! 🎉 Thank you
Don't hesitate to ask if there's anything!

[thebigw4lrus]

hey @sigmundpetersen , as I started digging into this issue, I got a few questions:

1. I see there is a taxonomy model, related 1-n with taxons models. I see in the admin interface once I create a taxonomy, two entities will be created: Taxonomy and Taxons. If we try to remove the tree representation of taxonomies, it looks to me that taxon purpose was only to model this. Should we remove taxon model and stick only with taxonomy?.

2. Looks like the Frontend needs to change as well: Now the Frontend tries to handle the trees unsuccessfully (it does not create them). is this part of the scope of the ticket?.

The way I see it there are two ways to move forward:

1. Remove the Gem, Clean the database structure for taxon model, and clean every single call to "parent" or "children" and assume a flat model.

2. The above (remove the gem), including also the FE changes (It would turn into a simple CRUD of taxonomy) and removing Taxon model. This way hypothetical Admin Simple Taxonomy CRUD would match the database structure.

2.1. The above (remove the gem), but keep Taxonomy-Taxon 1.N Relationship, meaning, we should adjust the UI in the scope of this ticket for a single taxonony to have several taxons.

I can do any way, but I am asking this to reassure on the ticket scope, as if we go for the path number 2, It would imply changes in several controllers outside of the taxon controller itself.

Thanks!

[sigmundpetersen]

Thanks @thebigw4lrus .
Let's ask the @openfoodfoundation/core-devs if they have any feedback on this 👍

[mkllnk]

Very good analysis, thank you!

Should we remove taxon model and stick only with taxonomy?

It's the other way round. Taxons are referenced by products and they contain important data. The taxonomy is a group of taxons and not used anywhere. It can be removed, I believe.

All the taxon fields relating to the tree structure can also be removed. We may need to keep the position for ordering, I'm not sure.

Looks like the Frontend needs to change as well

Yes, this is part of the scope. It can be a complete rewrite and it can be super simple like a standard Rails view to edit the taxon model (index, create, update). Possibly with positioning, not sure.

Does this give you a clear path forward?

[thebigw4lrus]

It does @mkllnk , starting my engines then 🚀 .. Thanks tons!

[sigmundpetersen]

Hi @thebigw4lrus hope everything is fine 🙂
Do you still want to work on this?

[wandji20]

I would love to work on this one.

[mkllnk]

Great, I assigned you, @wandji20.