Skip to content

Conversation

@dblythy
Copy link
Member

@dblythy dblythy commented Nov 10, 2020

Draft PR approach for closing #7001

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member

mtrezza commented Nov 10, 2020

Thanks for this interesting PR.

I'm not sure if conceptually this is the best approach, so I'll leave this as a draft and gather your thoughts.

Can you please open a new issue (or continue an existing one if there is) where you fully describe your concept and let's discuss there.

As a general rule:

  • discussions in issues should focus on finding a tangible solution and agreeing on a solution that works for the community
  • discussions in PRs should focus on evaluating the translation of the solution into final code

This could also be a stepping stone towards "Cleaning Up Files".

The most recent discussion has been in
#6780. I suggest we continue the discussion there.

I've currently passed the ACL through setTags (for proof of concept) as there's no setACL on Parse.File yet.

A PR should only contain the final solution to discuss. A reviewer cannot easily identify which part of the code is experimental and should be part of a conceptual discussion and which part of the code is intended to be final and should be reviewed. That creates the risk that experimental code finds it way into a release.

I'm also not sure how running .save on an existing file would affect this (E.g changing data or changing ACLs. Maybe I should query "_File" first?). Any thoughts are much appreciated.

Let's have this discussion in the issue.

@dblythy
Copy link
Member Author

dblythy commented Nov 10, 2020

As a general rule:

  • discussions in issues should focus on finding a tangible solution and agreeing on a solution that works for the community
  • discussions in PRs should focus on evaluating the translation of the solution into final code

Ok, thanks for the pointers. I'm glad you've removed the stale bot because most of the issues that i've been working on are closed, or difficult to find.

I'll change my workflow in future feature builds / PRs. I think i've covered most of the request features that I'd have wanted in the past.

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member

mtrezza commented Nov 10, 2020

I'm glad you've removed the stale bot because most of the issues that i've been working on are closed, or difficult to find.

Yes, I agree. We're in the process of removing the stale bot for that reason.

@dblythy
Copy link
Member Author

dblythy commented Nov 10, 2020

I've made a new issue as I think this covers a broader range of issues than mentioned in #6780, and I don't want to hijack the focus of that thread. Thanks Manuel!

@dblythy
Copy link
Member Author

dblythy commented Dec 14, 2020

Closing this until we decide on a proper conceptual approach and usage in #7001

@dblythy dblythy closed this Dec 14, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants