Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
[WIP] 433 anonymously uploaded files should appear in trash of folder creator #536
[WIP] 433 anonymously uploaded files should appear in trash of folder creator #536
Changes from all commits
02444bf
d55c967
609b2a8
81f44f3
889cefc
4fc1fe8
139e95a
06d6db2
2086ae5
fb58b8e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not needed to rollback to the old token.
For anonymous access you can crate a new instance of the UserApi in the test, and store the token permanently.
These callbacks just bring complexity
const anonymousUser = UserApi()
anonymousUser.loginWithToken()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's more complicated than that, it's what I wanted to discuss. The UserAPI class has a user object that wouldn't be valid with the other JWT, it also loads workspace and anonymous user stuff which we don't need, and it inits the Api class with the user, which then loads it's jwt on its own. I can't figure out what they're supposed to be but they don't match a user nor a session one to one. This is a hacky way around all that complexity.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"This is a hacky way around all that complexity.", exactly, so please let's do not add additional.
Actually it represents a user session in the browser, and sometimes it can be with "real" user or anonymous session.
So we can refactor the constructor of the class, and make some fields optional, but until this, let's KISS
anonymousUser.jwt = token.value;
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🤮 that's worse ! at least my hack is clean and has no side effects (also I disagree it's complex, it's one callback that's advised), and the call is readable and descriptive. Modifying the field from outside on an object used in multiple tests....
Yes I want to refactor UserApi, and also, remove User-Api, but, we should talk first because I'm not sure about the actual responsibility scope we should aim for