Using good ol'-fashioned cookies! The JS sets it, and then Rails reads
it on pageload. That way, there's no flash of content for it to load in
after JS loads.
If your first wanted list was created before your first owned list,
then `false` would come before `true` in the keys of
`current_user_lists`.
I both fixed this to be more consistent at the model level, because who
likes unpredictable behavior? But also downstream at the view I
hardcoded that true should come before false, because that's a UI
concern that I want to be encoded in the view regardless of what's
upstream.
It was a bit tricky to figure out the right API for this, since I'm
looking ahead to the possibility of splitting these across multiple
pages with more detail, like we do in DTI 2020.
What I like about this API is that the caller gets to apply, or not
apply, whatever scopes they want to the underlying hanger set (like
`includes` or `order`), without violating the usual syntax by e.g.
passing it as a parameter to a method.
I guess I deleted this a while ago without really noticing… I think I'd
at some point like to replace this with like, the DTI 2020 improved
table layout thing, but I figured this would be pretty quick to throw
in and make the page not feel like a pain to use lmao
Oh yeah, a long-standing limitation. Good thing we're better at stuff
now!
This is also probably the real cause of the weird number of slight
discrepancies between main DTI and DTI 2020 when I eyeballed stuff lol
oh, well, that and the missing default-lists. A bit messy!
Self-hosted Plausible instance! I have need of usage numbers again,
after a good few years of just not using it; but I don't want to send
the data to Google, and I enjoy self-hosting things, so here we have it!
There was a static page explaining it, which we no longer link to; and
there was an unused field in the User model for who was a beta tester
for it. Goodbye!
There was a time when I used an old proxy server to try to fix mixed
content issues, and I eventually removed it but never took the tendrils
out from the code.
We probably _should_ figure out how to secure these URLs! But until
then, we may as well simplify the code.
This hasn't worked for a while, and I don't know an API off the top of
my head to drop in for it. Let's just delete it for now, and revisit it
later if we want to!
Just sharing this out to gather info, since this might be coming kinda
soon!
I also moved the announcement higher up in the template, because it
gets broken on the user lists page which uses floats quite a bit for
the site header—and tbh I feel like this is better anyway lol.
This came in a few parts!
1. Add meta tags to let us know we're logged in.
2. Install React Query, which has the data-loading sensibilities I like
about Apollo without the GraphQL that has honestly been a drag.
3. Replace the outfit-loading and outfit-saving calls with API calls to
the main app.
4. Update the main app's API calls to use our more flexible data
constructs like "pose".
Would've loved to do this more incrementally, but it's hard to! You
can't split out outfit-loading and outfit-saving, or auth from any of
that, or the state gets all out-of-sorts.
Still, this is a good nugget we've pulled out all-in-all, and one that
people have been asking for! Can maybe look to logged-in item search
soon too, for own/want data?
The URL anchors were getting like. double-encoded? The `closet[]` part
was encoding as `closet%255B%255D`. Maybe a thing in Rails, where you
need to mark them `html_safe` to insert them in a URL like that?
Well anyway, those URLs are redundant now, I just have it link straight
to the same outfit page as the big link!
Now, like in DTI 2020, opening an outfit will go straight to the editor.
I'm not 100% on whether this is actually like. the superior behavior?
But I think it's good enough, and it's what the wardrobe-2020 code
expects, so let's just roll with it for now!
I hope this doesn't cause problems! But yeah, with Puma doing threading, and maybe switching to Falcon someday to get even better concurrency properties, I feel like this will probably be fine?
And it makes the UX a loootttt better, to be back in the world where all these forms just work, whew.
