@nertc 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"
`Unfollow` was changed to `Unfollow User`
--
Reply to thi
@nertc commented on this pull request.
> - <%= link_to t(".remove as friend"),
> remove_friend_path(:display_name => @user.display_name), :method => :post %>
+ <%= link_to t(".unfollow"), follow_path(:display_name =>
@user.display_name), :method => :delete %>
@nertc pushed 2 commits.
2b7a48029bff06c190544f91c5969b09aeae552b Modify the way Friends are added
be11f2075e8bbde0a1e0640fd254c64ee0c94f25 Refactor friendships controller and
model
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5261/files/9fcfc1af4cd0c32958
@nertc pushed 1 commit.
9fcfc1af4cd0c32958e18ba35e228aa7a055e423 Refactor friendships controller and
model
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5261/files/a153faf0010fdf2b977a4f35f49bdaf3814c6fbc..9fcfc1af4cd0c32958e18ba35e228aa7a055e423
You are rec
searching by coordinates is a common use case. currently when hovering on a
link in the list of matches, it displays a temporary marker on the map.
additionally, clicking on a match causes the map to be centered at the marker
(panning without zooming).
however, the marker is removed as soon as
> - Sending the user to /login?referer=%2Fuser%2Fusername%2Fblocks is a
> workaround that somewhat works for non-needs_view blocks too and is not
> affected by GDPR. (*)
> - Don't care about non-needs_view blocks and want a simpler workaround? Send
> users to /login. (**)
Hmmm, does doing eith
Well the general rule is that we never delete anything for real in OSM so no.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5496#issuecomment-2588404585
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message
Undeleting messages is fine as a use case, that’s how the trash folder could
work. What I’m really missing is a way to permanently remove messages with no
way to undelete them. Has this been discussed already at some point?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.co
Yes
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/4605#discussion_r1616061310
is where I raised it.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5496#issuecomment-2588369080
You are receiving this because you a
I think this was discussed during the PR review and it was decided to keep it
like this?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5496#issuecomment-2588361906
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre
A while back I've noticed that the [Messaging
API](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Messaging_API_proposal) allows to
retrieve deleted messages via the API (`GET /api/0.6/user/messages/_nnn_`).
This seems to be inconsistent to how our UI works, where deleted messages are
no longer shown.
We
@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
@nenad-vujicic approved this pull request.
This looks and works great on my side. Thanks!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5495#pullrequestreview-2546910818
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to thi
> You can destroy the user.
You can't, the user is deactivated and gets some of the properties wiped. It's
a status change with extras.
If you don't like `:destroy` on status, what if we do `@user.soft_destroy!`
inside `update` too?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https:
@deevroman pushed 1 commit.
30403cb9307262871e7fa304430ca4d691e3bfb2 Use
baselayerchange/overlaylayerchange instead of layeradd/layerremove for speed up
Map Data layer render
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5474/files/5b37b549391bc12ca25019960
I think you can `update` the `status`, but you can't `destroy` the `status`.
You can `destroy` the `user`.
So I think refactoring the `set_status` is good but I think the destroy method
should stay in the same place.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/open
@nertc approved this pull request.
Tested and code works properly. I like this change, this kind of separation of
functionalities make code more readable and easier to work with.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/
@mnalis
> Here is some pseudocode
This is what effectively already happening for 0-hour needs_view blocks, except
instead of marking/unmarking every token there's block activation/deactivation.
And its happening *for every app* because there's no mechanism to select a
particular app. I don't s
> I know, that is why I specifically put "reasonable" filter word. I know about
> workarounds like showing 403 response message and about
> [streetcomplete/StreetComplete#6062
> (comment)](https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6062#issuecomment-2565450817)
Deleting the token i
@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
Tests I used for #5468. They create 10 anonymous notes and check that the
encouragement message appears, then log in or sign up and check that the
message disappears.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/549
Merged, thanks! I pushed [some whitespace
changes](https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/compare/b49cdc187e50fcbb5fda72719847e9215c5b81f4..0f2df0b9efcfff1d6bb0f7b2d16fa23f85d8708d)
to satisfy erblint test. That test didn't run because it needed approval, so
you couldn't see it h
Merged #5468 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5468#event-15903763834
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
rails-
@AntonKhorev pushed 1 commit.
0f2df0b9efcfff1d6bb0f7b2d16fa23f85d8708d display an encouragement to
contribute after many anonymous notes
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5468/files/b49cdc187e50fcbb5fda72719847e9215c5b81f4..0f2df0b9efcfff1d6bb0f7
@AntonKhorev approved this pull request.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5468#pullrequestreview-2546361028
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
### Description
PR adds `description` and `author_id` (`author_ip` is already there) methods to
Note model file. Methods use first comment for retrieving requested
information. Also, adds unit tests for testing functionality of added methods.
This PR is 1st from set of PRs described
[here](http
@nertc approved this pull request.
Code works properly and solves the issue raised in the comment mentioned in the
description.
There is also a different idea to solve the problem
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5449#issuecomment-2578415862),
but this PR has other
> ... I do wonder how it interacts with comments though - do we duplicate those
> for every version like we do with members of other objects or do we always
> show all comments whatever the version or maybe track add the current version
> to the comment when it's created and then show comments u
28 matches
Mail list logo
