Suggestion: rename role to membership

[gmaclennan]

I think the naming here is confusing, especially as we look forwards to allowing projects to define custom roles. What we currently call role is actually a record of a device's membership of a project, and it defines the roleId they have within a project. I think it would make more sense if we call this record type membership, or similar, and then keep the role record type for defining the roles available in a project - a role name, description, and capabilities of that role. Currently these are hard-coded in Mapeo Core as "capabilities".

@EvanHahn

[EvanHahn]

I agree.

In the long term, I see the following data model:

// This is a sketch.
// I'm sure many of the specifics are wrong!

type Project = {
  members: Membership[]
  roles: Role[]
}

type Membership = {
  device: Device
  role: Role
}

type Role = {
  title: string
  capabilities: Capability[]
}

In English: projects have members and roles. There are a small number of roles which can be custom. Each role has certain powers, defined by a list of capabilities.

This is all probably post-MVP.