Make a distinction between moderators and admins #619
Sans évaluateur
Labels
Sans labels
A: API
A: Backend
A: Federation
A: Front-End
A: I18N
A: Meta
A: Security
Build
C: Bug
C: Discussion
C: Enhancement
C: Feature
Compatibility
Dependency
Design
Documentation
Good first issue
Help welcome
Mobile
Rendering
S: Blocked
S: Duplicate
S: Incomplete
S: Instance specific
S: Invalid
S: Needs Voting/Discussion
S: Ready for review
Suggestion
S: Voted on Loomio
S: Wontfix
Sans projet
Sans assignation
2 participants
Notifications
Échéance
Aucune échéance n'a été définie.
Dépendances
Aucune dépendance définie.
Référence : Plume/Plume#619
Chargement…
Ajouter une table
Référencer dans un nouveau ticket
Sans contenu.
Supprimer la branche "moderator-role"
La suppression d’une branche est permanente. Bien qu’une branche supprimée puisse temporairement subsister, elle NE PEUT PAS être facilement restaurée. Continuer ?
And rework the user list in the moderation interface, to be able to run the same action on many users, and to have a huge list of actions without loosing space.
Fixes #582, fixes #359
I think we can assume an administrator is always a moderator (anyway if they are not, they can just grant themselves), so it might be more logical to have an enum user/mod/admin
(also I think UI for user edition should be a drop-down per user, with their current role as default value, and possibility to change their actual role, but I'm far from good at the whole UI thing)
(I request change for the incorrect route, the rest is more of a discussion with no strong positions)
@ -190,3 +205,3 @@
_admin: Admin,
_mod: Moderator,
page: Option<Page>,
rockets: PlumeRocket,
if I'm reading this right, and admin can't actually edit users, and a moderator can grant themselves admin rights
@ -190,3 +205,3 @@
_admin: Admin,
_mod: Moderator,
page: Option<Page>,
rockets: PlumeRocket,
Indeed.
I will try to make permissions an enum as you suggested.
For the UI part, the disadvantage of your proposal is that you can't apply the same action to a lot of users at the same time (but I don't know if it is really needed?).
@ -190,3 +205,3 @@
_admin: Admin,
_mod: Moderator,
page: Option<Page>,
rockets: PlumeRocket,
maybe for mass-ban, but probably not for mass-granting-privileges
Codecov Report
not quite a 👀
the did diff is impossible to review on mobile thanks to translations, which, too, are almost impossible to review, so i'm not sure it makes sense that we commit them as part of regular PRs
perhaps, "Author"?
I don't know, this also includes someone who made an account just to comment
For translations, I think I will remove them for the moment. Once we will switch to the 2018 edition, I think we will be able to use the latest version of
gettext-macro
which has options to make smaller diffs.sleepy 👀
that means, on this end, we'd just have a (one)
from_str()
can't we use an enum here instead of these numbers? (or in SQLite, a check constraint https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5299267/how-to-create-enum-type-in-sqlite)
See this commit message
e3ecbdb2f4
I tried to use a crate to do that with Diesel, but it generates a schema with the enum type for Postgres and with
Text
for SQlite, which we would have to maintain two differentUser
struct depending on the database, one withrole: UserRole,
and the other withrole: String,
, and I don't want to do that.Sorry, but… I don't understand. 😅 Could you try to rephrase, please?
Having an enum to make the comparison and not having magic numbers everywhere would still be cool
I didn't know it was possible to associate numbers to enum variants like that.
❓
@ -51,6 +51,12 @@ use {ap_url, Connection, Error, PlumeRocket, Result};
pub type CustomPerson = CustomObject<ApSignature, Person>;
pub enum Role {
if we
#[derive(Shrinkwrap)]
would it auto-convertas i32
?@ -51,6 +51,12 @@ use {ap_url, Connection, Error, PlumeRocket, Result};
pub type CustomPerson = CustomObject<ApSignature, Person>;
pub enum Role {
It's not a struct Role(i32), so I don't think so. Maybe tinkering with one of Deref, Borrow or AsRef can make it less verbose (like requiring only a & maybe)
An ugly but functional way of doing so would be to that:
It won't work for matching and won't protect from invalid value as effectively as an enum, but it does not require as i32
@ -51,6 +51,12 @@ use {ap_url, Connection, Error, PlumeRocket, Result};
pub type CustomPerson = CustomObject<ApSignature, Person>;
pub enum Role {
thinking about it, this is a thing, and is exactly what you hopped to do with Shinkwrap