Contractor doesn't allow disabling system-wide contracts

Bug #1026280 reported by Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Contractor
Triaged
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

There are mechanisms to add or change, but not disable/remove system-wide contracts per-user. Some people (e.g. me) will never use e.g. Facebook and Twitter contracts and prefer to disable them.

This bug causes ugly workarounds in webcontracts.

Changed in contractor:
milestone: none → luna-beta1
Revision history for this message
Danielle Foré (danrabbit) wrote :

Please stop targeting extra features to Luna. We are past feature freeze.

If you don't want a contract, don't install it.

Changed in contractor:
milestone: luna-beta1 → none
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Revision history for this message
Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff (shnatsel) wrote :

In .desktop files this is implemented with Hidden=True key; a file with this key is equivalent to no files existing on this level and lower ones. See http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s05.html

Revision history for this message
Cassidy James Blaede (cassidyjames) wrote :

Discussion from Google Doc (http://goo.gl/A2lHJ):

Daniel Foré
4:27 PM Oct 26
Wouldn't this fall under the category of conditionally showing contracts? ie "if facebook is configured, show contract, else don't show"

Fabian Thoma
4:28 PM Oct 26
probably, or you won't have a facebook app installed, so no contract there anyway

Сергей Давыдов
4:29 PM Oct 26
What if I have Google configured but I don't use Cloud Print or G+? I believe we should make users able to choose after all.

Daniel Foré
4:39 PM Oct 26
TBH, if the service wants to provide such complex behavior I think that's up to the service to handle. Contractor shouldn't have to handle this kind of stuff.

Сергей Давыдов
4:49 PM Oct 26
IDK, .desktop files support this and I recall lots of people rambling about GNOME dropping Alacarte, the only real use of which was toggling visibility. But this is not a real argument XD

Cassidy James
2:27 PM Today
I agree with Dan here. That should be up to the app, not Contractor.

Cody Garver (codygarver)
no longer affects: contractor/0.3
no longer affects: contractor/0.2
Changed in contractor:
status: New → Triaged
Revision history for this message
Victor Martinez (victored) wrote :

We'd need to add extra code to contractor to address a system-integration issue, since applications are supposed to ship contracts (in an ideal world, of course).

Regarding the use case mentioned here, a smart application (e.g. a twitter client) may place some contracts at runtime under ~/.local/share/contractor so that only the current user can access them.

Revision history for this message
Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff (shnatsel) wrote :

That's what webcontracts currently do, but it's not really maintainable. Notably, applications can't easily ship updates to .contract files this way.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.