Some doorkeeper proposals #126
Conversation
tomhughes
force-pushed
the
doorkeeper
branch
3 times, most recently
from
520a575
to
b96f386
Compare
| </tbody> | ||
| </table> | ||
| <% else %> | ||
| <p><%= t ".no_applications_html", :oauth2 => link_to(t(".oauth_2"), "https://oauth.net/2/") %></p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the reason for pulling out the link like that? It creates a potential lego issue in the translations and the main translation is already an HTML string anyway - is it just to stop translators changing the link target?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was done this way just to match the corresponding no_apps_html from the OAuth (1) client applications page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah ok. I just realised there are two versions of no_applications_html but only one of oauth_2 so I thought you might be sharing that but it seems not so I'm wondering if the other one works properly?
| flash: | ||
| applications: | ||
| create: | ||
| notice: Application Registered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was there a reason for pulling this in from the upstream translations? I don't think we use it directly do we, though the doorkeeper controllers that we inherit from do.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's part of the created vs registered thing - I wanted to keep the verb consistent between the page titles, action buttons and flash messages.
Here's some proposed changes to your doorkeeper pull request. I think it's easier to open them as a PR against the branch on your repo, or at least I can't think of a better way.
They cover a few bootstrap / forms / i18n topics but there's nothing major here.