Skip to content

1 - Developer can disabled tchat tools in settings - #161

Merged
YglesEyes merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
enhancement/disabled-tchat-tools
Oct 13, 2022
Merged

1 - Developer can disabled tchat tools in settings#161
YglesEyes merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
enhancement/disabled-tchat-tools

Conversation

@YglesEyes

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Add in settings

{
  "public": {
    "disabledFeatures": ["textualCommunicationTools"]
  }
}

@YglesEyes
YglesEyes requested a review from Donorhan October 10, 2022 16:28
@ramnes

ramnes commented Oct 11, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

#139 architecture doesn't work for what you want to achieve? We could extend it with a dropdown for all textual communications tools.

@ramnes ramnes added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 11, 2022
@YglesEyes

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

The goal is to have a more global restriction for the server and not only for a team, for the moment it seems easier to use flag instead of rework the code to have optional modules.

@ramnes

ramnes commented Oct 11, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Okay, then we probably want to streamline the way these permissions work because it seems to me that it's going all over the place.

I would suggest a common list of modules across the different types of feature flag systems and a generic way of toggling these modules at each level (guests / level / server), with a config that would look like this (or anything really):

{
  "features": {
    "useMessaging": {
      "enabled": true,
      "guestEnabled": false,
      "levelConfigurable": true
    },
    ...
  }
}

What do you think?

@ramnes

ramnes commented Oct 11, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

At the very least we should use the same format and module names, i.e. here we should replicate how guests is structured:

{
  "features": {
    "useMessaging": false
  }
}

rather than

{
  "disabledFeatures": ["textualCommunicationTools"]
}

or it will be a nightmare to streamline later. :(

@YglesEyes

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Like it, it is more generic and configurable, i don't have time yet but I will implement it ASAP

@YglesEyes
YglesEyes merged commit 87788b8 into master Oct 13, 2022
@ramnes ramnes mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants