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

Handle deployment settings in a new collection in the database #704

Open
jdbocarsly opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #716
Open

Handle deployment settings in a new collection in the database #704

jdbocarsly opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #716
Assignees

Comments

@jdbocarsly
Copy link
Member

We have a number of settings on the frontend and backend that are currently set using environement variables. It would be nice for admins to be able to set many of these settings from the app itself.

To do this, we will need a new database collection called "settings" (or similar), that holds a document with settings for the overall deployment, as well as documents for individual block types. Many of the settings in resources.js could be stored here, as well as things like API keys for llm models, configuration for login types, etc. These settings could be changeable by admins from the new admin panel that is in development.

@ml-evs
Copy link
Member

ml-evs commented Apr 16, 2024

Some stuff needed (in discussion with @BenjaminCharmes):

  • Database collection for settings, with some distinction between public (values that the UI can access, e.g., logo URL, whether the inventory is editable) and private (secret keys, settable by admins but not reported by the API)
  • API routes for returning public settings (e.g., /info/settings) and changing public and private settings /admin/settings
  • Way of viewing and changing specific hard-coded settings (for now) in the admin dashboard
  • App loading settings into store on first load

@ml-evs
Copy link
Member

ml-evs commented Apr 16, 2024

This general approach will be followed by #667 at some point too

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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants