-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
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
feat: readonly album sharing #8720
feat: readonly album sharing #8720
Conversation
b0a5c30
to
40a38c7
Compare
40a38c7
to
de58cd2
Compare
…an have access too
# Conflicts: # server/src/services/album.service.ts
…owners can have access too" This reverts commit 1343bfa.
This PR relies on new API properties that haven't been released yet. Blindly including mobile changes for them would probably break album sharing for most people at the time of the release, so I'd recommend adding them later. |
I think with this design, you cannot add UserA as Editor and UserB as Viewer in a single operation |
Yes, and I like that. Let's say you want to add users as 50/50 editors and viewers. Adding one group first and then the rest in another operation is much fewer clicks than having to click three times for each user in one group before clicking add. The possibility is also there to just add everyone then change the role of a few users on the other (view users) screen. But the most common usecase I think is to add all users as either one, which works a lot better here. |
Yes please, and thanks |
What do you think about adding a Also I won't have too much time to work on this for the rest of this week. I'll see what I can do. |
Please don't. I'd prefer a streamlined operation. Introducing many variations is not a good design; too many choices will confuse the common user. I understand that this serves your specific use case; however, when we add a feature, we have to think about the majority of the user group. |
I have reverted to the one dropdown per user solution. I still think there's more that we could do here. There has to be a compromise between clarity and functionality. I'll be very interested to hear what other people who have many users on their instance will think. E2E test succeeded locally, I'm not sure what this timeout is about. The web test fail is legit, it's due to the svelte warning that I mentioned above. I'm not sure what would be the best way to solve it. |
b45266c
to
3a5a4db
Compare
@jrasm91 I really like what you did with the modal. I think this one should be the "options/edit users" modal, and there could be a separate add users modal that's more closer to the Google Docs style interface. That's all I wanted to say, whatever we go with is going to be better than it was before. Thanks for reading me ramble about it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you very much! I know there were a lot of back and forth about the UI. I am open for additional user feedback, and we will make changes if need
First significant contribution.
This PR adds the ability for album owners to share an album with a specific user without letting them add images to or remove images from the album. It includes database, backend, API as well as frontend changes to achieve this.
Relates to #1607