user access control #14

New Issue

adam · 2023-06-06T09:35:12-04:00

adam commented

2023-06-06 09:35:12 -04:00

going to want some kind of runtime administration, right? so probably only let some people do that, e.g., me, but not randos.

Would make sense to say "alright if you're in a discord server, obviously the server owner can fuck with your settings". bonus points if the server can tell you a role can do a thing.

But you don't necessarily want a given person to have more permission in different contexts, right?

going to want some kind of runtime administration, right? so probably only let some people do that, e.g., me, but not randos. Would make sense to say "alright if you're in a discord server, obviously the server owner can fuck with your settings". bonus points if the server can tell you a role can do a thing. But you don't necessarily want a given person to have more permission in different contexts, right?

adam self-assigned this 2025-04-19 11:47:20 -04:00

adam commented

2025-04-19 12:24:32 -04:00

for now, I think each behavior wants a "thing" that can associate 0 or more channels and 0 or more accounts in that channel. and itself. And that's it.

then it's up to the behavior to figure out if it only cares about a channel, or if it needs both, or whatever else.

note to future me: other shit? YAGNI, prove me wrong

for now, I think each behavior wants a "thing" that can associate 0 or more channels and 0 or more accounts in that channel. and itself. And that's it. then it's up to the behavior to figure out if it only cares about a channel, or if it needs both, or whatever else. note to future me: other shit? YAGNI, prove me wrong

adam commented

2025-04-24 11:00:53 -04:00

it works, I guess. boy the web interface is ugly, unintuitive, and difficult. but shit functions!

adam closed this issue

2025-04-24 14:00:14 -04:00

Sign in to join this conversation.