- As blocking is now reciprocal, we do not need another query, we can
use neo4j-graphql-js magic to query for a BLOCKED relationship between
the postAuthor and the currentUser
* DRY schema stitching code
* Use same `.env` configuration file for cypress tests
That last part I couldn't improve a lot. I thought it might be possible
with cypress to import all files from a folder. But since it must be
browser compatible and our backend is not using webpack or anything,
it remains a goal unreached.
close#2773close#2774
- Muting a user means I cannot see their content, they can still see
mine
- Even for blocking, we want a blocked user to be able to see the
content just not interact with it.
- at the moment, we have implemented blocked like we want the
blacklist/whitelistUserContent to be, with the exception that is should
not be both ways. If I blacklist a user's content, they still see my
content in their news feed.
@Mogge first of all, you can wait for multiple promises in parallel
by using Promise.all([...]). Second if you run:
```sh
DEBUG='human-connection:neo4j:cypher' yarn run dev
```
in order to log out all database statements. I added log statements to
the new search resolver.
- in the end, the error was due to not asking for the id of the author
back of the Post.. grrr.... why couldn't we get better error messages!!
- Co-authored-by: Moriz Wahl <moriz.wahl@gmx.de>
- write tests for userMiddleware
- checks the functionality of nodes/locations middleware
- refactor to not allow users to update to remove their name
debatable whether we want that or not, but we do not allow users to
create accounts with no name, so we should be consistent, before we were
using neode to validate this, but we have are removing neode from
production code, so we must validate ourselves
- collate UpdateUser mutations to one
- This test, though I understand why it was added, is not necessary in
my opinion. It's more difficult to get this test to pass since we don't
call session.run, we call session.writeTransaction which has a callback
that calls transaction.run...
- I think we don't need to test that our third party library does what
it was added to do... they have their own tests, which can be found here
@roschaefer, which I think are sufficient https://github.com/validatorjs/validator.js/blob/master/test/sanitizers.js
- We can always add another type of test, if you feel necessary, maybe
an e2e?
