one-file import/export to QDA

[eterX]

Hi!

Did you have the chance to review my proposal at #505 ? (not really a PR, more like a proof-of-concept for a new feature). I’ve been using this feature on my fork for a while now. It turned out to be very useful, importing project templates , exporting to QDA software, and so on.
You could say “I already know a one-file format for serializing Trees and external references and it’s called ReqIF”. But I think QDA exchange format is much simpler and expressive enough for many use cases, especially in the early stages of the project (req elicitation, and so on).
QDA software communities appear to be pretty active (much wider domain than Req Mgmt SW , I guess), so the underlying module could be further refined with less effort.

Please, let me know what you think of this and what can I do to contribute. Maybe a short live demo of the doorstop+CAQDAS stack in action?

Thanks!

Leandro

[jacebrowning]

@eterX The PR looks good to me! I think we should support as many import/export formats as possible.

If you can at at least one test for exporting and one test for importing, I think it should be good to merge on CI is passing.

[eterX]

Great news! Thanks for your feedback. Really think that QDC and QDPX formats are handy.

Just commited the testcase TestExporter.test_export_qdc() . All tests in test_all.py pass. Is that the only condition for CI cycle to complete?

Not sure if the hook I implemented in exporter.py:136 is the best possible approach. The rationale behind it is to give one-file exporters some info of the whole project, so they can wrap-up after the last doc (total_documents==count). It looked like the 'all' pseudo-preffix exports each document on a separate file, for all formats. AFAIK, no one-file exporters at the moment.

test_import_qdc() is comming up!

[eterX]

Done. QDA import/export ready for beta testing!!! B)

Please, see test_all.test_*_qdc()

Looks like a confict in poetry.lock is preventing the automatic merge, not shure if I'm able to fix that. But some other conflict might raise, it's been a while since started this feature. :/

[jacebrowning]

This should help you resolve the poetry.lock conflicts: https://www.peterbe.com/plog/how-to-resolve-a-git-conflict-in-poetry.lock

[eterX]

worked great! New PR #517 is now "able to merge". Thanks!

[neerdoc]

Since PR #517 is now close and won't be fixed, should this issue also be closed? If there is no big demand for this, my suggestion is to close it as "Won't fix" for now. Should it be requested later we can always reopen it. What do you think @jacebrowning?