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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Rework Django admin integration #169

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Rework Django admin integration #169

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

MarkusH
Copy link
Collaborator

@MarkusH MarkusH commented Aug 4, 2016

  • Provide views / URLs under the /admin/ path
    • login
    • setup
    • backup tokens
    • profile
    • QR code
    • Phone integration
    • YubiKey
  • Custom Admin styling
  • Rework patching of the admin for 2FA

@MarkusH MarkusH mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2016
Open
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Aug 4, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-2.2%) to 93.795% when pulling 93afc9c on MarkusH:feature/admin-integration into f308883 on Bouke:master.

@MarkusH MarkusH force-pushed the feature/admin-integration branch from 93afc9c to 714e6cb Compare August 9, 2016 08:31
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Aug 9, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-2.2%) to 93.795% when pulling 714e6cb on MarkusH:feature/admin-integration into f308883 on Bouke:master.

@Bouke Bouke added this to the 1.5 milestone Nov 3, 2016
@Bouke Bouke modified the milestones: 2.0, 1.5 Jan 4, 2017
@Bouke Bouke removed this from the next milestone Jul 29, 2017
@Bouke
Copy link
Collaborator

Bouke commented Jul 29, 2017

It would be awesome if we could land this PR, as the current admin integration is rather lacking. Do you have plans to continue working on this? If not, I might have a look at this sometime in the next months.

@dopry
Copy link
Contributor

dopry commented May 5, 2022

@MarkusH, @Bouke do you think this could be largely superseded by #491, or is there still value in porting this to the current master?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@MarkusH @coveralls @Bouke @dopry