fix: clarify share flow in UI #3252
Conversation
Prior to this commit, to share an entry, a user has to click on the share link and then copy the URL they are redirected to. The danger is that they may right-click and copy the share link without actually clicking on it, and therefore share a link that, when authenticated, shares the entry, rather than actually sharing the entry. Here, we avoid this misinterpretation by making sharing into a POST request and using a form rather than a link.
| <input type="hidden" name="csrf" value="{{ .csrf }}"> | ||
| <button type="submit" class="page-button"> | ||
| {{ icon "share" }}<span class="icon-label">{{ t "entry.share.label" }}</span> | ||
| </button> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick: The indentation is inconsistent with the rest of the code.
|
It certainly looks like it should be possible to work with that; I'll look into it tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know (and thanks for catching the indentation, too)! |
|
What exactly broke with the web share functionality? It looks like that's only meant to work after the share link has been created anyway, and, having just tested that, it seems okay. What's meant to work that isn't yet? By the way, it looks to me like checkShareAPI needed to be await the result of navigator.share to catch the expression (though apparently the linter has issues with my fix, sorry!). Thanks again for the helpful feedback, hopefully none of this is too strange :) |
Navigator.share returns a promise that's executed in the background, but unless we await it explicitly, we won't get the exceptions in the try/catch block.
Prior to this commit, to share an entry, a user has to click on the share link and then copy the URL they are redirected to. The danger is that they may right-click and copy the share link without actually clicking on it, and therefore share a link that, when authenticated, shares the entry, rather than actually sharing the entry.
Here, we avoid this misinterpretation by making sharing into a POST request and using a form rather than a link.
This would have clarified some of the confusion in #3251. Please let me know if there's anything to change/improve with this; thanks!
Have you followed these guidelines?