@1ec5 commented on this pull request.
> +level3: "Administrative Boundary (Level 3)"
+level4: "Administrative Boundary (Level 4)"
+level5: "Administrative Boundary (Level 5)"
+level6: "Administrative Boundary (Level 6)"
+level7: "Administrative Boundary (L
@AntonKhorev commented on this pull request.
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ def confirm
user.email_valid = true
flash[:notice] = gravatar_status_message(user) if gravatar_enable(user)
user.save!
+cookies.delete :_osm_anonymous_notes_count
If you run osm-website in a term
@AntonKhorev commented on this pull request.
> +level3: "Administrative Boundary (Level 3)"
+level4: "Administrative Boundary (Level 4)"
+level5: "Administrative Boundary (Level 5)"
+level6: "Administrative Boundary (Level 6)"
+level7: "Administrative Boun
@AntonKhorev commented on this pull request.
> +level3: "Administrative Boundary (Level 3)"
+level4: "Administrative Boundary (Level 4)"
+level5: "Administrative Boundary (Level 5)"
+level6: "Administrative Boundary (Level 6)"
+level7: "Administrative Boun
@AntonKhorev commented on this pull request.
> + border_type = t
> "geocoder.search_osm_nominatim.border_types.#{extratag.attributes['value']}",
> :default => prefix_name if extratag.attributes["key"] == "border_type"
+ place_type = t
"geocoder.search_osm_nominatim.prefix.pl
@1ec5 commented on this pull request.
> + border_type = t
> "geocoder.search_osm_nominatim.border_types.#{extratag.attributes['value']}",
> :default => prefix_name if extratag.attributes["key"] == "border_type"
+ place_type = t
"geocoder.search_osm_nominatim.prefix.place.#{e
@1ec5 commented on this pull request.
> +level3: "Administrative Boundary (Level 3)"
+level4: "Administrative Boundary (Level 4)"
+level5: "Administrative Boundary (Level 5)"
+level6: "Administrative Boundary (Level 6)"
+level7: "Administrative Boundary (L
@AntonKhorev commented on this pull request.
> +level3: "Administrative Boundary (Level 3)"
+level4: "Administrative Boundary (Level 4)"
+level5: "Administrative Boundary (Level 5)"
+level6: "Administrative Boundary (Level 6)"
+level7: "Administrative Boun
@etiennejourdier commented on this pull request.
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ def confirm
user.email_valid = true
flash[:notice] = gravatar_status_message(user) if gravatar_enable(user)
user.save!
+cookies.delete :_osm_anonymous_notes_count
I thought it would be more l
@etiennejourdier commented on this pull request.
> @@ -5,9 +5,17 @@
<%= t(".intro") %>
<% if !current_user %>
-<%= t ".anonymous_warning_html",
- :log_in =>
link_to(t(".anonymous_warning_log_in"), login_path(:referer => new_note_path)),
-
@etiennejourdier pushed 1 commit.
b49cdc187e50fcbb5fda72719847e9215c5b81f4 display an encouragement to
contribute after many anonymous notes
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5468/files/13d1113e2f94e1a40268a8677bb443d2728b3307..b49cdc187e50fcbb5f
> If there's an api to check whether the user is blocked, you need a valid
> token to access that api. If blocking invalidates the token, you're not
> going to have a valid token to access that api.
Makes sense. That is why my suggestion implied that such a new API call is
maybe not needed at
> There are ways to detect blocks
I know, that is why I specifically put "reasonable" filter word. I know about
workarounds like showing 403 response message and about
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6062#issuecomment-2565450817
--
Reply to this email directly or view i
@tomhughes commented on this pull request.
I'm not totally convinced showing the numeric level is useful but generally
this looks good apart from the specific point I've mentioned in a comment.
> @@ -101,9 +101,13 @@ def search_osm_nominatim
if klass == "boundary" && type == "administrati
And I haven't even suggested to display the block message in the app. That's
because currently the blocks api returns it in some format it doesn't tell, but
it's almost certainly markdown. Then you'll say that you don't want to parse
markdown. One solution to that is to have it converted to html
Merged #5492 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5492#event-15896304570
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
rails-
Merged #5491 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5491#event-15896304568
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
rails-
@tomhughes requested changes on this pull request.
This is going to need to be broken down in to multiple PRs as we can't take all
three migrations in one go, and we can't take code changes that rely on new
fields until after those fields have been created.
The first two PRs should be one to cr
> If we stop that then it would not fix anything and would make things worse.
> User will be never notified about block
If you want to be lazy, just show the 403 response message. It tells about the
block. That's what iD does. We can put an url there to to read the block
directly. *User will be
I hadn't previously noticed that #5294 had proposed adding versioning - that's
a whole other level of additional complication.
I can understand why it might be needed for tags, and I guess it also allows
for editing the initial description if we want once that it part of the note
itself rather
Looks good to me, thanks.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5492#issuecomment-2585790739
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
> This behavior of killing off tokens on 403 is the reason why this issue was
> opened. If they stop doing that, they wouldn't need block messages appearing
> on the authorization page.
If we stop that then it would not fix anything and would make things worse.
User will be never notified about
> invalidating tokens
If there's an api to check whether the user is blocked, you need a valid token
to access that api. If blocking invalidates the token, you're not going to have
a valid token to access that api.
It only makes sense to invalidate the token if you insist on making users to
re
@nenad-vujicic approved this pull request.
This looks and work great on my side. Thank you very much!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5492#pullrequestreview-2545452683
You are receiving this because you are subsc
>Sending the user to reauthorize again and again when they've already seen a
>block is not going to help with anything.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why would that _"again and again"_
reauthorisation need to happen?
My suggestion was _not_ about invalidating tokens every time a user logs i
> authorisation is not blocked
in
> user doing oauth authorisation (for example login into an OSM editor) which
> is blocked
I meant that user is blocked. Is
> blocked user doing oauth authorisation (for example login into an OSM editor)
more clear?
---
> Sending
> authorisation ... which is blocked
authorisation is not blocked
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5490#issuecomment-2585711467
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
_
> Wouldn't be possible that when a user is blocked, their tokens are
> invalidated, so they are forced to re-login?
No, this is going against any kind of api that would let the app to check if
the user is blocked, in particular #5452. Even if StreetComplete devs will
decide against checking act
@AntonKhorev commented on this pull request.
> + follow:
+heading: "Do you want to follow %{user}?"
+button: "Follow User"
+ unfollow:
+heading: "Do you want to unfollow %{user}?"
+button: "Unfollow"
Of course you wouldn't write "Unfriend as friend" (as
> Safari still has a bug, but it will be fixed soon hopefully:
>
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171934
IIUC Apple [doesn't want to remove this
block](https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171934#c96) due to security
reasons until the [Private Network Access
specification](https://
@AntonKhorev commented on this pull request.
> + has_many :follows, -> { joins(:following).where(:users => { :status =>
> %w[active confirmed] }) }
+ has_many :followings, :through => :follows, :source => :following
OK, let's keep `followings`.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on
@AntonKhorev commented on this pull request.
> @@ -5,9 +5,17 @@
<%= t(".intro") %>
<% if !current_user %>
-<%= t ".anonymous_warning_html",
- :log_in =>
link_to(t(".anonymous_warning_log_in"), login_path(:referer => new_note_path)),
-
> deletion of the cookie after successful login
If you do this, you probably also want to delete the cookie on signup. I'm not
sure if it's better to do before or after confirming the email. If before,
you'd delete the cookie somewhere here:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-websit
33 matches
Mail list logo
