Repository navigation
Show both drafts and published consents in admin, and add ability to archive consents - #257
Merged
Merged
Conversation
sifferhans
changed the title
Main's consent blocking (consent_blocked_user_ids, 00116/00117) predates archived_at, so an archived required consent kept hiding users. 00118 now redefines the function to skip archived keys, filtered after the DISTINCT ON so archiving v2 does not make v1 block again, and archive/unarchive apply the block changes to the cached boards and units. Assisted by Claude Opus 5.5 via Claude Code
The project nav gained a consents entry; the mock lacked the permission it reads. Assisted by Claude Opus 5.5 via Claude Code
KillerX
force-pushed
the
feature/all-consents-in-admin
branch
from
October 30, 2026 13:33
2baa6eb to
718fa20
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Drafts are visible in their own table above the published ones.
We don't want to allow deleting them, as we want the audit trail for legal reasons (probably).