This repository was archived by the owner on May 30, 2024. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
Support conversion from an LDUser to a JsonObject #136
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure of the reason for this line. The front end already has a
privateAttributeNames
configuration option for the client, just like the back end; if you're using that option on the back end, presumably you would be doing the same on the front end. TheprivateAttributeNames
property in the user is meant for attributes that have been marked private for this user.I mean, doing this won't hurt anything, but I think it is unnecessary and it also conflicts with what is arguably the normal goal of JSON serialization: capturing the state of this particular object.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Similarly, I think adding the
allAttributesPrivate
property from the client configuration into the user object is misleading (since the JS client will not actually use the property there). If you want your front-end client to always use the same configuration as the back end without having to specify it in code, I think it would be better to pass those configuration options separately.