Skip to content

footprint add possibility to ignore models - #61

Open
jaumard wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
feature/footprint_ignore_models
Open

footprint add possibility to ignore models#61
jaumard wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
feature/footprint_ignore_models

Conversation

@jaumard

@jaumard jaumard commented Nov 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Now with this, under config.footprint.models we can have an array of ignored models like controllers, if a footprint is called on an ignored model a 403 is returned

@scott-wyatt scott-wyatt left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just curious, why would this be on trailpack-express and not trailpack-footprints?

@jaumard

jaumard commented Nov 15, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Because unfortunately the footprint controller and policy are here so no other choice to put this here... If there were in trailpack-footprint no problem to put everything there

@jaumard

jaumard commented Nov 16, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Currently trailpack-footprint is basically empty... it just provide the footprint configuration and routes but not the implementation of those

@jaumard

jaumard commented Nov 20, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@scott-wyatt another way of doing that under trailpack-footprint is to stop using generic routes for model footprint and start using dedicated route for each models, like this if models are ignored we just don't add the routes for this models, what do you think ? It will also work for both hapi and express when here it's only express. Sound much better
ping also @tjwebb @konstantinzolotarev

@jaumard

jaumard commented Mar 20, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Can I merge this @scott-wyatt ?

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 this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants