-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 815
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Site Settings API: add jetpack search controls #10079
Conversation
Summary: - indicator of if jp search supported - enable/disable flag Test Plan: - TeamCity Tests Differential Revision: D17676-code This commit syncs r180015-wpcom.
That's a great PR description, thank you so much for your effort! Generated by 🚫 dangerJS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks fine. I'm just not sure how the endpoint works in general :) @gibrown, is jetpack_search_supported
supposed to be settable?
@@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ | |||
'jetpack_relatedposts_show_headline' => '(bool) Show headline in related posts?', | |||
'jetpack_relatedposts_show_thumbnails' => '(bool) Show thumbnails in related posts?', | |||
'jetpack_protect_whitelist' => '(array) List of IP addresses to whitelist', | |||
'jetpack_search_enabled' => '(bool) Enable Jetpack Search', | |||
'jetpack_search_supported' => '(bool) Jetpack Search is supported', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this supposed to be part of the request_format
or just the response_format
?
@mdawaffe ya jetpack_search_supported is not supposed to be settable. It is read only. If someone does try to set it then it will just get ignored. I'm not sure that adding more complexity to the code to handle this case would make sense though. |
Does it belong in site settings then? Do you know if there is other read only things in there? Perhaps the ship has already sailed on this one. |
Ya, I think the ship has sailed. For instance, Agree with your point, but I also don't see another endpoint that exists that has read-only fields. I guess what we should maybe have is some documentation of which fields are read-only. |
I think we can just rework the request/response format properties. Let's just get this merged for now, though. |
* Readme: add boilerplate for next release, 6.6 * Add 6.5 to the changelog.txt file * Set boilerplate testing list for 6.6 * Readme: update stable tag to 6.5 * Add bullets to 6.5 changelog items * Readme: add link to previous changelogs This will help folks who want to know more about past releases, while keeping the readme.txt short so as to not overwhelm translators and site owners only looking for information about the last release. * Changelog: add information at the top of the changelog file. * Changelog: add #10054 * Changelog: add #10078 * Changelog: add #10079 * Changelog: add #10064 * Changelog: add #10094 * Changelog: add #10096 * Testing list: add more information based on #10087 * Changelog: add #9847 * Changelog: add #10084 * Changelog: add #9918 * Changelog: add #7614 * Changelog: add #10116 * Changelog: add #10108 * Changelog: add #10041 * Changelog: add #10121 * Changelog: add #10134 * Changelog: add #10130 * Changelog: add #10109 * changelog: add #10137 * changelog: add #9952 * changelog: add #10120 * changelog: add #10162 * Changelog: add #10163 * Changelog: add #10092 * changelog: add #10156 * Changelog: add #10154 * changelog: add #10122 * Changelog: add #10101 * changelog: add #10105 * changelog: add #10190 * Changelog: add #10196 * changelog: add #10152 * Changelog: add #10153 * Testing list: add more details to Site Verification testing steps. @see #10143 (comment) * changelog: add #10194 * Changelog: add #10193
Differential Revision: D17676-code
This commit syncs r180015-wpcom and brings these three files in sync. It has already been merged to wpcom.
Changes proposed in this Pull Request:
Summary:
Testing instructions:
Test Plan:
/sites/%site/settings
is returning the correct value for the given site. And no errors.Proposed changelog entry for your changes: