You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now, admins can create keys on behalf of an user, but they can't delete them. (via API)
I suggest that we also support the DELETE operation.
From a bigger perspective, is there any reason why the /user endpoints where implemented instead of /users/{username}? (I guess they were already implemented in gogs)
It's easier for an admin to manage it's users via /users/{username}. It can introduce some overhead and confusion if for each resource type endpoint will exist an equivalent admin endpoint (DELETE: /users/{username}/keys/{id} -> /admin/users/{username}/keys/{id}).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
lafriks
added
type/feature
Completely new functionality. Can only be merged if feature freeze is not active.
modifies/api
This PR adds API routes or modifies them
and removed
type/proposal
The new feature has not been accepted yet but needs to be discussed first.
type/feature
Completely new functionality. Can only be merged if feature freeze is not active.
labels
Dec 6, 2017
[x]
):Description
Right now, admins can create keys on behalf of an user, but they can't delete them. (via API)
I suggest that we also support the
DELETE
operation.From a bigger perspective, is there any reason why the
/user
endpoints where implemented instead of/users/{username}
? (I guess they were already implemented in gogs)It's easier for an admin to manage it's users via
/users/{username}
. It can introduce some overhead and confusion if for each resource type endpoint will exist an equivalent admin endpoint (DELETE:/users/{username}/keys/{id}
->/admin/users/{username}/keys/{id}
).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: