You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If an API user is added with custom rate limits, you can't remove individual custom rate limits from the table by editing the record. You can click the "Remove" button next to an individual limit and after confirming removal, it disappears from the interface, but after saving the record, the removed entires are still present after reloading.
Oddly, the removal action does work on the custom rate limits defined on API Backends, it's just on the API Users from where this is broken. There were some subtle differences in edits due to #303, but with that fixed, I'm not quite sure what's causing the differences in behavior between the two forms since they both use the same underlying Settings model. Need to investigate more, but it seems to be something more related to the model setup and the Rails accepts_nested_attributes_for behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If an API user is added with custom rate limits, you can't remove individual custom rate limits from the table by editing the record. You can click the "Remove" button next to an individual limit and after confirming removal, it disappears from the interface, but after saving the record, the removed entires are still present after reloading.
Oddly, the removal action does work on the custom rate limits defined on API Backends, it's just on the API Users from where this is broken. There were some subtle differences in edits due to #303, but with that fixed, I'm not quite sure what's causing the differences in behavior between the two forms since they both use the same underlying
Settings
model. Need to investigate more, but it seems to be something more related to the model setup and the Railsaccepts_nested_attributes_for
behavior.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: