leap_web.git/app/models, branch 0.5.1 [leap_web] destinguish user.email from user.email_address 2014-05-13T12:42:07+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-05-13T12:03:53+00:00 bbe9de73352b5aa937173b4158267f6a37e9ca5f use the former if you want a working email account or nil, the latter if you want the email address associated with a given user no matter if the user actually has an email account or not. 
use the former if you want a working email account or nil, the
latter if you want the email address associated with a given
user no matter if the user actually has an email account or not.
keep empty email field if user removed prefill 2014-05-13T08:52:55+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-05-13T08:52:55+00:00 0261e82686ec4fcfc8b633664fadb1dd6d9c8070 We should respect the users choice. We can still get their email from the user id if we really need to. 
We should respect the users choice. We can still get their email from the user id if we really need to.
allow for usernames with dots 2014-05-13T07:51:41+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-05-13T07:51:36+00:00 86eb9062f1e81302647bf18ce0f5fd981202b68a preparing for #5664 with some test improvements i ran into this issue This commit includes a fix and the test improvements. In particular it adds BrowserIntegrationTest#login - so there is no need to go through the signup procedure everytime you want a user to be logged in. 
preparing for #5664 with some test improvements i ran into this issue

This commit includes a fix and the test improvements. In particular it
adds BrowserIntegrationTest#login - so there is no need to go through the signup procedure everytime you want a user to be logged in.
adopt service_level config to platform settings 2014-04-18T11:08:45+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-04-18T10:51:18+00:00 be81b7430e0a2046125be7c3a4b01b8725f4afe6 cost -> rate quota -> storage 
cost  -> rate
quota -> storage
bringing back empty cert prefixes 2014-04-18T10:39:27+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-04-18T10:39:27+00:00 966e390d401b84dad98127e647d2ec634f1cbc15 if neither limited nor unlimited certs are allowed there will be no prefix. Not sure if this is desired - but it's the way things used to be before the refactoring 
if neither limited nor unlimited certs are allowed there will be no prefix. Not sure if this is desired - but it's the way things used to be before the refactoring
change service level configuration strategy 2014-04-18T10:30:52+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-04-18T09:55:40+00:00 9216ab8252246a263c5d17f6755a7d3887145f94 The changes to the configuration required some non minor changes to the platform and also added some flexibility we don't require yet - and thus some new possibilities for errors. So instead we still use the allow_..._certs and ..._cert_prefix options. They basically provide the framework in which service levels can operate. The service level configuration will not include the cert prefix anymore. It only states if the service level is rate limited or not. This avoids conflicts between the two configuration options. I also removed the anonymous service level entirely. It was also turning a boolean decision (do we provide anonymous eip or not) into something way more complex. Instead I added the AnonymousServiceLevel class to handle the corner cases for people who are not logged in. Furthermore i renamed the UnauthenticatedUser to AnonymousUser so it matches the Anonymous Service Level nicely. It's also shorter and more intuitive. 
The changes to the configuration required some non minor changes to the platform and also added some flexibility we don't require yet - and thus some new possibilities for errors.

So instead we still use the allow_..._certs and ..._cert_prefix options.
They basically provide the framework in which service levels can operate.

The service level configuration will not include the cert prefix anymore.
It only states if the service level is rate limited or not.
This avoids conflicts between the two configuration options.

I also removed the anonymous service level entirely.
It was also turning a boolean decision (do we provide anonymous eip or not) into something way more complex. Instead I added the AnonymousServiceLevel class to handle the corner cases for people who are not logged in.

Furthermore i renamed the UnauthenticatedUser to AnonymousUser so it matches the Anonymous Service Level nicely. It's also shorter and more intuitive.
make use of the UnauthorizedUser 2014-04-17T17:27:47+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-04-17T17:27:47+00:00 7a9ece43bd61246b450471ed6bb1089570321e38 Null Pattern for current_user - use it to get rid of some conditionals 
Null Pattern for current_user - use it to get rid of some conditionals
UnauthenticatedUser as current_user 2014-04-17T10:07:13+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-04-17T10:06:38+00:00 614745c84cab37dd03f2bd8f06160fd01c7fabdb this still allows us to do current_user.service_level. Have not gone through the rest of the code yet. Only made sure logged_in? now tests for is_a? User instead of !!current_user 
this still allows us to do current_user.service_level.

Have not gone through the rest of the code yet.
Only made sure logged_in? now tests for is_a? User instead of !!current_user
initial commit for the service level api 2014-04-17T09:42:13+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-04-17T09:42:13+00:00 8cc5ba134f6c5a1a06d91407aa78b962545c54ac :api/service will return a hash of the current users service level This is failiing if the user is not logged in. Instead it should return the service description for an anonymous user. 
:api/service will return a hash of the current users service level

This is failiing if the user is not logged in. Instead it should return the service description for an anonymous user.
move certs into toplevel 2014-04-10T10:54:36+00:00 Azul azul@leap.se 2014-04-10T10:45:21+00:00 c1486cb9688d53c5ae266ff22ab279ead12eaa36 cleaned up all the engine stuff that was never really used. Afterwards there is not that much left that makes it into the toplevel. 
cleaned up all the engine stuff that was never really used.
Afterwards there is not that much left that makes it into the toplevel.