Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature/49060 group agenda items with sections #15291

Merged
merged 41 commits into from May 8, 2024

Conversation

jjabari-op
Copy link
Collaborator

@jjabari-op jjabari-op self-assigned this Apr 17, 2024
@@ -86,42 +86,89 @@ def update_sidebar_participants_form_component_via_turbo_stream(meeting: @meetin
component: Meetings::Sidebar::ParticipantsFormComponent.new(
meeting:
),
status: :bad_request
status: :bad_request # TODO: why bad_request?
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We want to ensure a non-ok HTTP response so that the modal doesn't auto-close after the form submission. Do you have a specific other status in mind?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This would make sense to me if there's a form which should show from validations - but in this case I don't see that. Additionally, having a static "bad_request" - even for successful submissions - seems like a misuse of the status.

However, I just saw that this method (update_sidebar_participants_form_component_via_turbo_stream) is not used at all. Only update_sidebar_participants_component_via_turbo_stream is called within the controller.

I would therefore remove update_sidebar_participants_form_component_via_turbo_stream. @oliverguenther Or do I miss something here?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes I think it can be removed, it's a remnant from before the time we rendered the dialog/form separately

Copy link
Member

@oliverguenther oliverguenther left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Except for specs and general cleanup, looking very good already. The way you solved the first section feels very native. Let's try to get this done before we switch all our efforts to open points 👍

Copy link
Member

@oliverguenther oliverguenther left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good to merge once the first implicit section is removed again as the spec correctly remarks 👍

@oliverguenther oliverguenther marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2024 11:43
@jjabari-op jjabari-op merged commit de3feec into dev May 8, 2024
10 of 11 checks passed
@jjabari-op jjabari-op deleted the feature/49060-group-agenda-items-with-sections branch May 8, 2024 19:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
2 participants