Sent from my iPad
On 12/06/2010, at 7:15 AM, Simon Meers wrote:
>>> * Permissions - from my initial inspection, it isn't obvious to me
>>> that you are honoring (and/or testing that you are honoring)
>>> permissions. If I don't have permission to edit an object, I shouldn't
>>> get an edit li
Sent from my iPad
On 09/06/2010, at 8:33 PM, Simon Meers wrote:
>> The demo screenshots you provide certainly look good to me; I haven't
>> done a full teardown on the patch, but a from a quick glance it
>> certainly looks promising.
>
> Thanks for your response Russ.
>
>> * Why allow edit
>> * Permissions - from my initial inspection, it isn't obvious to me
>> that you are honoring (and/or testing that you are honoring)
>> permissions. If I don't have permission to edit an object, I shouldn't
>> get an edit link. Given the addition in 1.2 of object-level
>> permissions, this means
> The demo screenshots you provide certainly look good to me; I haven't
> done a full teardown on the patch, but a from a quick glance it
> certainly looks promising.
Thanks for your response Russ.
> * Why allow edit links on a readonly field? This seems a little
> redundant to me?
Because whil
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Simon Meers wrote:
> On 25 May 2010 07:50, Simon Meers wrote:
>>
>> I've uploaded some screenshots [1] of the new patch for #13163 [2] and
>> #13165 [3] in action, to allow people to see the affect without
>> necessarily applying the changes.
>>
>> These enhancemen
On 25 May 2010 07:50, Simon Meers wrote:
>
> I've uploaded some screenshots [1] of the new patch for #13163 [2] and
> #13165 [3] in action, to allow people to see the affect without
> necessarily applying the changes.
>
> These enhancements have *vastly* improved the navigability of the
> admin in
I've uploaded some screenshots [1] of the new patch for #13163 [2] and
#13165 [3] in action, to allow people to see the affect without
necessarily applying the changes.
These enhancements have *vastly* improved the navigability of the
admin interface between related objects.
Please have a look an
