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

site coverPrefs as Ed option #223

Open
forresto opened this issue Jun 2, 2016 · 7 comments
Open

site coverPrefs as Ed option #223

forresto opened this issue Jun 2, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@forresto
Copy link
Contributor

forresto commented Jun 2, 2016

coverPrefs defaults all three to allow (x !== false), but doesn't actually write the pref until the checkbox is un/selected.

Once we have sitewide coverPrefs, those could be an Ed option, so photographers don't feel like they have to uncheck boxes on every photo.

@forresto forresto added blocked and removed blocked labels Jul 13, 2016
@forresto
Copy link
Contributor Author

If #nofilter set site-wide, makes sense to show unchecked + disabled checkbox for allow filters. And note that filters are disabled site-wide.

Probably no demand for people to allow filters on specific blocks.

forresto added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 29, 2016
@forresto
Copy link
Contributor Author

forresto commented Jul 29, 2016

#nofilter

edit: dimmed read-only ones

@bergie
Copy link

bergie commented Jul 29, 2016

One problem is that the post can be moved to another site

@forresto
Copy link
Contributor Author

Then the app would mount it with the site defaults when opened there.

forresto added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 29, 2016
isRequired and fallback {} so I don't need safety everywhere
forresto added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 29, 2016
and "(off site-wide)" message
forresto added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 29, 2016
@forresto
Copy link
Contributor Author

(@bergie I didn't see the problem.)

@forresto
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bergie and does it block releasing the feature?

@nickvelloff
Copy link
Contributor

Given the description of the solution, I don't see how moving them is a problem.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants