-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Support packages occurring multiple times #239
Comments
This was referenced Nov 17, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 6, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 8, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 8, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 8, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 8, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 9, 2024
Usability enhancement: optionally allow specifying an explicit list of allowed counts in configuration, and check this in the backend. |
The GET |
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2024
Jumpy-Squirrel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 13, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Package configuration should include a maximum count that defaults to 1.
If a higher maximum count is configured for a package, allow selecting it multiple times.
All resources that currently take a comma separated list for packages should support receiving a package multiple times in the list.
We may also add a new additional field that can be used instead, and that takes a map of packages, such as
or something similar. When reading an attendee, both fields should be filled, when writing, the new field takes precedence.
The first step of the implementation should be a proposal for how the API spec would be expanded by this. Please do not start implementation before this has been discussed and reviewed by me.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: