New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
implement shelves visibility #322
Conversation
cd0ff3e
to
2d6a0c6
Compare
2d6a0c6
to
d562189
Compare
9b1d979
to
0002f82
Compare
43af79c
to
2e47752
Compare
2e47752
to
348953b
Compare
the more i use this new visibility selector, the more a "private" checkbox makes sense to me. It would then be an explicit choice, instead of the currently implicit of not having any checkbox checked could be v2, but i can dig into it |
The problem with a "private" checkbox is that it breaks the selectors logic. The same purpose could be done without this inconvenient by haveing a "you" checkbox, which can not be unchecked, so that when you uncheck everything else, the only visibility remaining is "you". I would be in favor of shipping the current implementation and see the user feedback we get |
your last comment is largely depending of the information displayed by the consumer of the visibility selector, hence the user might not see "private" every time a selector is displayed |
notably introducing the VisibilitySelector component
1649bfb
to
01b7c05
Compare
The client side of inventaire/inventaire#624
The trickiest bit was definitely the VisibilitySelector component and its inference system. Some examples:
visibility = [ 'public' ]
thenchecked = [ 'public', 'friends', 'groups', 'group:a', 'group:b' ]
visibility = [ 'groups ]
thenchecked = [ 'groups', 'group:a', 'group:b' ]
group:a
is unchecked, then bothpublic
andgroups
should be removed from thevisibility
arrayThe good news is that this component should be straight forward to reuse for other document types (
items
,lists
)