Closed cyb3rko closed 2 years ago
Looks to me as if the indentation was by mistake. There may be some IDEs that apply special indentation rules by default, one example is Android Studio. But indentation is generally a custom style decision, so I'd fix the indentation for better readability and consistency.
Yes, most modern IDEs support auto-formatting.
Then I will fix this as well. The Python conventions say that one indentation level equals 4 spaces: https://peps.python.org/pep-0008/#indentation
Alright, fixed indentation and Json formatting.
But I realised a few of those examples have a fix domain and don't support that input at the top of the page where you enter your own server connection information.
Is that intended or should we fix this as well? Example: https://docs.parseplatform.org/rest/guide/#localizing-push
I think this is a well-intended feature, but I don't think we should provide it for security reasons.
This feature asks developers to enter their Parse Server URL, master key and client keys on a webform and submit it. Asking that of a developer goes against establishing a good security practice and facilitates phishing. IMO we should never ask a developer to enter this information anywhere, but in fact create awareness about the sensitivity of that data and remind to never share it with anyone outside their project.
The only way such a feature may make sense was if the docs were made part of a Parse Dashboard backend where the user logged into the dashboard already has access to that information and it is merely displayed from the backend data.
I'm for removing this feature from the docs and just use common placeholders throughout the code. I'd do that in a separate PR though.
Opened https://github.com/parse-community/docs/issues/898 to track this.
Alright, then it's ready to merge.
Updated the Python examples (Closes #894). Changes I've made:
httplib
with newerhttp.client
libraryprint result
->print(result)
import
syntax to coding conventionsurllib.parse.urlencode
parameters to coding conventionsOptional step left:
Do we want to fix it or was there any reason why it was implemented like that?