Difference between revisions of "Order Express Improvements"
From eVision
m (Added example.) |
m |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* Indent replies with colons (<code>:</code>) at the beginning of the line. | * Indent replies with colons (<code>:</code>) at the beginning of the line. | ||
* Refer to the [https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Talk_pages MediaWiki Help Page] for examples. | * Refer to the [https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Talk_pages MediaWiki Help Page] for examples. | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Ideas = | ||
| + | Place new discussions in this section. | ||
| + | <!-- That means, add your new heading at some point below this. --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == User Type Indicator - Associated with every Account == | ||
| + | We need a more robust way to indicate those <code>UserType</code> records that are implicitly attached to all <code>Accounts</code>. This wouldn't waive any of the existing requirements, such as requiring all users to have exactly 1 <code>AccountUser</code> record marked as the default. Perhaps this is best implemented in the form of a <code>UserTypeOEConfigurations</code> record? [[User:Jshearer|Joshua Shearer]] ([[User talk:Jshearer|talk]]) 12:21, 30 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:21, 30 September 2014
The purpose of this page is to allow the developers to offer ideas for functional improvements to the underlying framework behind Order Express.
These suggestions are *technically* visible publicly, but this should be a suitable area for us to collaborate in this regard.
Notes
- Always sign your name after your comments. Use the four tildes "
~~~~" wiki syntax (or the signature button signature button in the toolbar above the editing textbox). - Start a new discussion with a
== level 2 heading ==at the bottom of the page (or use the “+” tab). - Indent replies with colons (
:) at the beginning of the line. - Refer to the MediaWiki Help Page for examples.
Ideas
Place new discussions in this section.
User Type Indicator - Associated with every Account
We need a more robust way to indicate those UserType records that are implicitly attached to all Accounts. This wouldn't waive any of the existing requirements, such as requiring all users to have exactly 1 AccountUser record marked as the default. Perhaps this is best implemented in the form of a UserTypeOEConfigurations record? Joshua Shearer (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
