Open chrisjlocke opened 7 years ago
Yep, that'd definitely be useful. :smile:
The code which does that is this:
It might seem (probably deceptively) simple. :wink:
The concept is obviously straight forward:
The 'y' or 'n' thing is because when writing that code I didn't (at the time) understand how to send http status codes from the server back to the browser. Thus sending y/n instead.
To make this a much nicer experience for the user, it'd probably need these bits to be done:
On that note, do you have Go 1.9 and Gogland installed? :smile:
On that note, do you have Go 1.9 and Gogland installed?
Hopefully by the time you read this.
Adjust the server side validation and/or ReservedUsernamesCheck() check code to return better info,
The beauty of status codes. I assume (for example) return 450 which means invalid length, 451 which means it contains a + (or invalid characters, but denoting which one is useful) 452 for ...... etc.
The code which does that is this
Thanks for the pointers. useful for starting. 👍
... and now I realise you're going to need to set up a running local dbhub.io server.
Probably about time I started writing those long overdue "How to setup and run your own dbhub.io server" docs. Maybe starting with just the bare essentials first. :smile:
Oh... and on Windows too. This could be fun.
Looking through our dependencies list, we rely on these bits of software:
You might need to run Memcached in a VM of some sort if it turns out to really not like Windows. Alternatively, I can pretty easily setup a new Memcached VM online and update its firewall so only you can connect to it. We literally have a working memcached server image ready to go in Rackspace that I'd just need to spin up and change some IP info for. :smile:
The beauty of status codes. I assume (for example) return 450 which means invalid length, 451 which means it contains a + (or invalid characters, but denoting which one is useful) 452 for ...... etc.
Yep. I'm not an expert on them, more a "lets get it working ok first"-pert. So... err... get it working "however you can", and we can refine it from there? :smile:
I'm ... more a "lets get it working ok first"-pert.
Creating a wacky username fails validation, but the user doesn't know why.
This one could be a nice simple one for me to play with as the code to fail is already there - just needs a 'heres why, knobby' text added. Maybe.... ?