Skip to content
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

Add ability to remove Openverse integration with WordPress #167

Closed
annezazu opened this issue Feb 21, 2022 · 7 comments
Closed

Add ability to remove Openverse integration with WordPress #167

annezazu opened this issue Feb 21, 2022 · 7 comments
Labels
✨ goal: improvement Improvement to an existing user-facing feature 💬 talk: discussion Open for discussions and feedback
Projects

Comments

@annezazu
Copy link

Problem

Some folks may not want there to be access to Openverse from their WordPress site (in either direction - to submit images or to find them). This came up in the FSE Outreach Program's All Things Media Hallway Hangout:

We ended the call agreeing that the ability to disable Openverse integration will also be important. This has come up with the pattern directory too and feels standard at this point to have this kind of opt in optionality.

Description

Allow a way to easily disable Openverse access. I imagine inspiration can be taken from the block plugin directory and block pattern directory integration.

@annezazu annezazu added ✨ goal: improvement Improvement to an existing user-facing feature 💻 aspect: code Concerns the software code in the repository 🚦 status: awaiting triage Has not been triaged & therefore, not ready for work 🟩 priority: low Low priority and doesn't need to be rushed labels Feb 21, 2022
@dhruvkb dhruvkb added this to Backlog in Openverse Feb 21, 2022
@AetherUnbound AetherUnbound removed the 🚦 status: awaiting triage Has not been triaged & therefore, not ready for work label May 9, 2022
@sarayourfriend
Copy link
Contributor

@WordPress/openverse-maintainers Can we use something other than GitHub issues to track things like "ideas for future integrations" etc? This issue doesn't really have anything actionable, it's just a note for us to keep in mind whenever we start to work on an actual core integration.

@dhruvkb
Copy link
Member

dhruvkb commented May 10, 2022

I do like that everything we're working on or planning to work on is in a single place. We could probably make a new status like "status: future" or "status: ideation" that suggests something is not currently being worked on but should be considered later on? We can put these tickets in a separate column in our projects (separate from the Backlog).

@zackkrida zackkrida added the 💬 talk: discussion Open for discussions and feedback label May 10, 2022
@zackkrida
Copy link
Member

I've added the 💬 talk: discussion logo at least, while we figure out how we want to handle things like this.

@sarayourfriend
Copy link
Contributor

The "priority" label is the one that doesn't make sense to me. Even if it's low priority it still indicates a priority implying that it is in some way actionable.

At the very least we could make it "blocked" but that still feels incorrect to me.

@zackkrida
Copy link
Member

I don't make the association that 'importance' (priority) implies actionability, but I also think that 💬 talk: discussion would indicate that that the action to take would be discussion itself.

@fcoveram
Copy link
Contributor

That is a great idea. Thanks for bringing it @annezazu

We can keep the talk: discussion label until putting down concerns, possible features, and scope. Once reaching that scenario, add the needs design label to start proposing a UX flow.

And agree with @sarayourfriend about the no need for a priority label. I would add removing the aspect: code label too.

@AetherUnbound AetherUnbound removed 🟩 priority: low Low priority and doesn't need to be rushed 💻 aspect: code Concerns the software code in the repository labels May 13, 2022
dhruvkb added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 20, 2023
…oto3-1.18.16

Bump boto3 from 1.18.11 to 1.18.16 in /openverse-api
@dhruvkb dhruvkb assigned dhruvkb and unassigned dhruvkb Jun 4, 2024
@obulat obulat closed this as completed Jul 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
✨ goal: improvement Improvement to an existing user-facing feature 💬 talk: discussion Open for discussions and feedback
7 participants