Ahh okay tricky lil thing: if you show the settings page with a partial
change to `AuthUser` that didn't get saved, it can throw off the state
of some stuff. For example, if you don't have a password yet, then
enter a new password but leave the confirmation box blank, then you'll
correctly see "Password confirmation can't be blank", but you'll *also*
then be prompted for your "Current password", even though you don't
have one yet, because `@auth_user.uses_password?` is true now.
In this change, we extend the Settings form to use two copies of the
`AuthUser`. One is the copy with changes on it, and the other is the
"persisted" copy, which we check for parts of the UI that care about
what's actually saved, vs form state.
Simplified this a bit into a helper. It's kinda odd to me, but
convenient for this moment, that Rails allows views to read `params`! I
guess it's for escape hatches exactly like this! lol
including validation logic to make sure it's not already connected to
another one!
The `intent` param on the NeoPass form is part of the key! Thanks
OmniAuth for making it easy to pass that data through!
I'm getting ready to add handling for "what if you don't *have* a
current password*??", so it seems like the right way to do that is to
just eject the controller and start customizing!
This is more consistent with the `uses_omniauth?` we already have, and
it also will help for the next change, where I want a `uses_password?`
method (and using the name `password?` breaks some of Devise's
validation code).
Ahh right, in development `User` and `AuthUser` will have the same ID,
but that got messed up early on for us in production DTI 😅
Here, we switch the form to reference the `User` instead of the
`AuthUser` (to get the ID right), then we also change how we compare
the IDs, because `User#to_param` appends extra text onto the ID after
the number!
Motivation is that I wanna add NeoPass stuff to here! But also like,
it's looked bad for a long time, let's clean it up!! (I just used the
Devise default without any styling at all lol)
In this change, we wire up a new NeoPass OAuth2 strategy for OmniAuth,
and hook up the "Log in with NeoPass" button to use it!
The authentication currently fails with `invalid_credentials`, and
shows the `owo` response we hardcoded into the NeoPass server's token
response. We need to finally follow up on the little `TODO` written in
there!
If you pass `?neopass=1` (or a secret value in production), you can see
the "Log in with NeoPass" button, which currently takes you to
OmniAuth's "developer" login page, where you can specify a name and
email and be redirected back. (All placeholder UI!)
We're gonna strip the whole developer strategy out pretty fast and
replace it with one that uses our NeoPass test server. This is just me
checking my understanding of the wiring!
I noticed an issue where Turbo-loading between the Your Items page and
the homepage would clobber each other's copy of jQuery, breaking things
sometimes. e.g. go to Your Items, then go to home, then go to Your
Items, and the page's JS fails because `$.fn.live` isn't defined.
I briefly tested the homepage and it didn't seem to actually depend on
any features from the later version of jQuery? At least not that I
noticed! So I'll just downgrade for consistency. (I also tried
upgrading the Your Items page, but there's too much usage of
`$.fn.live`, which is replaced with a notably different syntax in
jQuery 2.0+.)
First one, Turbo reasonably yelled at us in the JS console that we
should put its script tag in the `head` rather than the `body`, because
it re-executes scripts in the `body` and we don't want to spin up Turbo
multiple times!
I also removed some scripts that aren't relevant anymore, fixed a bug
in `outfits/new.js` where failing to load a donation pet would cause
the preview thing to not work when you type (I think this might've
already been an issue?), reworked `item_header.js` to just run once in
the `head`, and split scripts into `:javascripts` (run once in `head`)
vs `:javascripts_body` (run every page load in `body`).
Got some questions in Discord about account unlinking, and seeing
people look ahead to other potential integrations. Want to clarify that
unlinking will work here (barring any surprises!), and that there's no
data sharing _just_ yet!
Someone requested this in Discord, and I figured why not! I'm still
planning to move stuff away from Impress 2020 over time, I just figure
may as well have them more linked while this is still The Reality
This doesn't really matter, I just didn't realize the `.html` part was
optional, and I guess I omitted it here without realizing? But let's
add it for consistency.
Oh right, we don't have Rails UJS going on anymore, which is what
handled the confirmation prompts for deleting lists. Turbo is the more
standard modern solution to that, and should speed up certain
pageloads, so let's do it!
Here I install the `turbo-rails` gem, then run `rails turbo:install` to
install the `@hotwired/turbo-rails` npm package. Then I move
`application.js` that's run all on pages but the outfit editor into our
section of JS that gets run through the bundler, and add Turbo to it.
I had to fix a couple tricky things:
1. The outfit editor page doesn't play nice with being swapped into the
document, so I make it require a full page reload instead.
2. Prefetching the Sign In link can cause the wrong `return_to` address
to be written to the `session`. (It's a GET request that does, ever
so slightly, take its own actions, oops!) As a simple hacky answer,
we disallow prefetching on that link.
Haven't fixed up the UJS stuff for confirm prompts to use Turbo yet,
that's next!
I think this is the more canonical place for stuff like this these days!
It's nice to be able to just say the short name when calling `render`.
Here's the answer I looked up about it: https://stackoverflow.com/a/9892081/107415
My immediate motivation is that I'm looking at creating more About
pages, and thinking about where to put them; I think maybe we trash the
`StaticController`, move these partials out to here, and move terms
into a new `AboutController`?
I *think* what I'm observing is that:
1. The zone restrictions are different between these items.
2. The zone restrictions *change* when reloading the page sometimes. (I
assume from remodeling?)
3. The items look very buggy on many pets, because many appearances
seem to expect different zone restrictions than the item actually
has.
I think what this means is:
1. TNT has finally unbound restricted zones from the item level, and
allowed different appearances to have different restrictions. Neat!
2. The API still serves it the same way, as a field on the item.
So I think this means we need to update our schema to reflect the fact
that an item's `zones_restrict` field isn't *really* a property of the
item; it's a property of the combination of the item and the current
body ID.
My gut take here is that maybe this means it's time for the Large
Refactor that I've kinda been interested in for a while, but been
avoiding because of Impress 2020 compatibility issues: instead of a
`body_id` field on assets, and having them directly belong to items,
make an `ItemAppearance` record (closer to how 2020's GQL API modeled
it, I was looking ahead to this possibility!) that's keyed on item and
body ID, and assets belong to *that*.
Then, we could move the zones restriction field onto the
`ItemAppearance` record instead. And then it doesn't really matter to
us how TNT models it internally; whatever we saw is what we use.
(Again, I looked ahead to this in the 2020 app, and tried to use the
`restrictedZones` field on `ItemAppearance` when possible—even though
it secretly just reads directly from the `Item`!)
…but that's a pretty big departure from how things are modeled now, and
isn't something we can just throw together—especially coordinating it
across both apps. I was getting close to being able to shut off 2020
from a *front-facing* perspective (but still keeping a lot of the GQL
endpoints open for the wardrobe-2020 frontend), but I don't think we're
very close to being able to try to target turning off 2020's *backend*
as a prereq to this; or at least, if we do, we should expect that to
take a while. (Counting now, there's still 9 GQL queries—not as many as
I expected tbh, but still quite a few.)
So idk how to sequence this! But for now, let's put out a warning, and
start setting expectations.
Okay, so I still don't know why rendering is just so slow (though
migrating away from item translations did help!), but I can at least
cache entire closet lists as a basic measure.
That way, the first user to see the latest version of a closet list
will still need just as much time to load it… but *only* the ones that
have changed since last time (rather than always the full page), and
then subsequent users get to reuse it too!
Should help a lot for high-traffic lists, which incidentally are likely
to be the big ones belonging to highly active traders!
One big change we needed to make was to extract the `user-owns` and
`user-wants` classes (which we use for trade matches for *the user
viewing the list right now*) out of the cached HTML, and apply them
after with Javascript instead. I always dislike moving stuff to JS, but
the wins here seem. truly very very good, all things considered!
From an era when we didn't have that! Now we do!
(My motivation is that I'm trying to add new JS to this page and errors
in stickUp are crashing the page early, womp womp!)
Impress 2020 has had this for a while, I've wanted it for reference on
occasion, let's bring it in!
Very similar logic, and Ruby & Rails's date affordances are super
helpful for simplifying how to express it!
The homepage used to point to old projects that don't work anymore
anyway! This is the only project that stuck, so just redirect here!
We also remove the openneo.net link from the footer, because there's
nothing useful to say there anymore!
It hasn't been updated in a long time, let's just be rid of it!
It's possible I'll replace it with another blog sometime if we get the
chance to do more development work, it could be a useful way to improve
communication—but not yet!
Mostly this is just me testing out what it would look like to
modularize the app more… I've noticed that some concerns, like
fundraising, are just not relevant to most of the app, and being able
to lock them away inside subfolders feels like it'll help tidy up
long folder lists.
Notably, I haven't touched the models case yet, because I worry that
might be a bit more complex, whereas everything else seems pretty
well-isolated? We'll try it out!
