Tickets :: Comment on [#56] IMP maintenance should apply to a configurable folder set.

Search Results: 1 of 574 [ Next> Last>> ] [ Return to Search Results ]

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: .___. ..__ .___. [__ \ /[ __[__ \| \| \/ [_./\| \|___
Comment	> Alrighty, here it is. > > > > Chuck, your comments make a lot more sense to me now that I've > implemented them. It was not clear to me previously that locking a > maintenance preference also enables/disables the user's ability to > skip the action (maybe it didn't used to be this way, I don't > remember). So, I've removed everything that was trying to do so, > which made the framework patch unnecessary. > > > > I've also removed the hook function from the horde patch (also not > needed now), as I found a better way to deal with unset folder > values. So, what remains is a pretty light-weight IMP patch, which I > feel is much more in line with the current code base. In other > words, I think this is a much better patch. > > > > So, basically, you just have 3 prefs now. > > > > 'purge_folders' : checkbox which enables/disables the entire thing. > > 'purge_folders_max_days' : sets the max number of days before purging > all folders. > > > > and then there is a special and implicit pref pair, which I count as > one thing. > > 'purge_folders_list_folders' > > 'purge_folders_list' > > > > The main thing to understand as far as behavior is that the routine > always assumes the max days, unless you override that value for a > certain folder (which, if set greater than the max days, still uses > max days). > > > > The one area that might need some work would be the per-folder > preferences display. The folder list will not display when the admin > has set the value of purge_folders to 0 and set locked to 1. I > thought this would make more sense than showing the user something > that doesn't do anything anyway. I did this because I would assume > the admin would lock both purge_folders and purge_folders_max_days, > but couldn't really lock the special and implicit values (I may be > wrong here). There is also a somewhat kludgey hack in the form of > inline css style on the text input for the per-folder options, in > which I reduced the size of the text in the box because it was making > gaps in the folder image tree (which we might want to remove). > > > > Anyway. I hope this gets us closer. Please let me know if I can > make any more revisions, or if it's fine, as is. Thank everyone for > all your help and suggestions. > > > > Brook
Attachment
Watch this ticket

Saved Queries