Skip to content
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

make table name configurable for db user backend #9868

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 21, 2018
Merged

Conversation

icewind1991
Copy link
Member

The main use case for this is to make it easy to create a separate user backend for the guest app (to prevent guests from becoming "real" users if the app gets disabled for any reason).

@icewind1991 icewind1991 added the 3. to review Waiting for reviews label Jun 14, 2018
@icewind1991 icewind1991 added this to the Nextcloud 14 milestone Jun 14, 2018
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 14, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #9868 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 90%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #9868      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     52.07%   52.07%   -0.01%     
  Complexity    25901    25901              
============================================
  Files          1642     1642              
  Lines         95884    95885       +1     
  Branches       1318     1318              
============================================
  Hits          49929    49929              
- Misses        45955    45956       +1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
lib/private/User/Database.php 81.36% <90%> (+0.11%) 42 <2> (ø) ⬇️
apps/files_trashbin/lib/Expiration.php 90.32% <0%> (-1.62%) 29% <0%> (ø)

@rullzer
Copy link
Member

rullzer commented Jun 14, 2018

Would it not be 'safer' to just have the guest app have its own tables? And implement a real backend?

@blizzz
Copy link
Member

blizzz commented Jun 14, 2018

I guess he wants to save some code, but then this is not in the public namespace either

@rullzer
Copy link
Member

rullzer commented Jun 14, 2018

I would really prefer to do it properly in its own backend. That way if we want to change something in either the app backend or the db user backend we can do so without worrying of breaking the other.

@icewind1991
Copy link
Member Author

Creating a separate backend would be an almost complete copy paste from this backend

@icewind1991
Copy link
Member Author

I created a separate PR with all changes from this one except the configurable table name

#9881

Signed-off-by: Robin Appelman <robin@icewind.nl>
@MorrisJobke
Copy link
Member

I created a separate PR with all changes from this one except the configurable table name

Rebased after #9881 was merged ;)

Copy link
Member

@MorrisJobke MorrisJobke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine with this one.

Copy link
Member

@rullzer rullzer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok fair enough. Lets do it like this. if it turns out it diverges to much we can later always move this over to the app.

So 👍 for now :D

@rullzer rullzer merged commit ed29984 into master Jun 21, 2018
@rullzer rullzer deleted the user-backend-table branch June 21, 2018 17:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3. to review Waiting for reviews
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants