Closed kay0u closed 5 years ago
It feels like it's the same than public/private. If private, only a registered user in YunoHost can load images. If public everyone can. Adding this feature limit users as well for public access. Not sure it worth the pain.
If it was a internal authentication to lutim, we could find a use case for users other than YunoHost ones. But as it's ldap authentication, it does the same thing than YunoHost, without HTTP Auth.
Is there any use case I missed ?
The fact is, when ldap is activated via lutim, every user can manage his own images. If is not, I saw that it's web browser based (I believe)
So... what was the purpose of adding ldap here ? Having lutim more secured of having that feature for users that can manage their pictures ?
The idea is to link the uploading of an image to a specific account. (Maybe this is not an interesting feature and you can close this PR:-))
Well, no that can prove to be useful. But, first that should be an option, since it adds an extra authentication field. It could be bothering if not needed.
Second, did you try it with different browsers to be sure that's indeed a different behavior ?
Hmm in private navigation, different windows use same cookies... So my bad, ldap on lutim side don't link images to an account. With a different browser, images disappear.
That's too bad because it could have been interesting...
Yep... Sorry for the fake joy. We can close this PR then?
I guess so... Is there any other advantages to add ldap into lutim ?
I think the main purpose of the feature was only to restrain who can upload images.
Yes, but it's already provided by yunohost.
If you have a better idea than what I've done in
scripts/actions/public_private
, tell me :-)