-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
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
update to web-v2023.8.2 and rename to Vaultwarden Web
#138
update to web-v2023.8.2 and rename to Vaultwarden Web
#138
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
I personally would still like to have some notice of the copyright or origin that the web-vault is a fork from Bitwarden®. Mostly to still indicate a link. But, it doesn't have to be that long though haha. |
I think the long text would be great for the login page. But only for the login page. In the rest of the app, I would just
|
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
I am hopeful that the smiley means that this was sarcasm. Haha. |
v2023.8.0 was just released. |
Vaultwarden Web
and get rid of 404 pageVaultwarden Web
, get rid of 404 page and update to web-v2023.8.0
I am still waiting for some feedback about the footer in the app (not the login page). Is it even possible to have different text on the login page and the rest of the app? But it looks great on the login page (the first image you poated). |
Yes, those are two different files ( Before updating to v2023.8.0 I've already added the third version for now (until I get or have a better suggestion for how to display it better) because I think it looks better than having nothing and I'm not sure I like a free-floating "(unofficial Bitwarden® server)" |
I certainly like the left: Vaultwarden Web (unofficial Bitwarden® server) if you don't like that, how about: left: Vaultwarden Web |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
I don't want to be ungrateful for your attempt to make the long text shorter, but this doesn't look like a footer, nor does it seem any shorter. I really do no understand why you want to plaster a banner (this is what it rather looks like) on every single page in the web app. Or maybe it is your idea of annoy people so that they won't misunderstand versioning. The operative word here is "annoy". It has a nag screen feel to it. A footer should be unobtrusive. Do the examples (all but the one where you omitted the long text) strike you as discreet? Please tell me what you think of my suggestions? Why are they not ok? I checked how they look, and they look great for a footer. They tell you everything there is to know. The long text is more like documentation or an appeal to people to finally understand the point you are trying to make. This is why it is great for the login page. It is the first thing people see. If they haven't read it there, they won't read it in th app either. It just makes the whole experience more clunky and annoying for people who know what the text means but have to see that text on every operation in the app. I have mentioned this before and it is not only my opinion but also a fact: Making the obvious more obvious will not yield a different result. If people are ignorant or think they know everything, they won't read documentation, or a wiki page, or an annoying footer, or an issue template. |
As said in the beginning, I'm totally okay with having no text there but I also don't think that a longer text is that distracting or bad UI as you make it out to be. Please don't overexaggerate the issue because you disagree with me. Maybe I was unclear but I have suggested those three lines with reasons, which is why I have not adopted different ones or taking your suggestions seriously. Sorry, about that but I did not see the point. Trying to be serious for a moment and defending my proposal and why I am suggesting three short sentences instead of being content with something like "Vaultwarden Web (unofficial Bitwarden® server)", here's what I'm thinking:
Legally, the trademark guidelines would be fulfilled by not mentioning Bitwarden at all. The GPLv3 (§ 5.) also states that
However since you repeated something you already said in #131 and what I do have to make clear is that my changes are not to imply that our users are ignorant or stupid. So please stop suggesting that. Also I am not the one who decides what gets added (I'm just a contributor making suggestions). It may just be a difference of opinion or aesthetics and I definitely disagree with your assessments. But since I agree with you that is not that important I don't really see the point in arguing this further with you (especially if you want to insult other users). |
Just to be clear (and this is important to me), I was not insulting anyone, I was stating a fact. Please look up the words (ignorance and stupidity) in a dictionary and check, whether they fit or not. Although stupidity might be too harsh when you look at that word alone, you have to read it in context with ignorance, as it was meant. Anyway, this is my last comment on that matter. This is way off-topic and I certainly did not want to offend anyone or have the dicussion go in this direction. But I can't be made the bad guy, because I stated a fact. Please don't twist my words or interpret something that isn't there. When it comes to the footer we apparently won't agree on it ever. I know that you do not make the decisions, but you have been an avid contributor to this project and the project owners will listen to you more than they would to me. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Back to topic, I think we have multiple options from minimalist to more verbose for the footer: I think the minimalist change (i.e. "Vaultwarden Web" on the left, "Version v2023.8.0" on the right) serves as the basis of the following suggestions and I would like to say that I slightly prefer it over the current/previous options but not very much. I think that I can also live with slight variation of @tessus' last suggestion (i.e. "running on Vaultwarden, an unofficial [rewrite of the] Bitwarden® server". I am not particularly fond of it and I would rather we brainstorm some more or get some more perspectives before settling on this one but I'd definitely prefer it over "Vaultwarden Web (unofficial Bitwarden® server)" (or the current/previous version)... Looking back to the suggestions from the previous PR, maybe we can do something like a mix. I.e. explain about Vaultwarden (the server) on the left and Vaultwarden Web (the client) on the right? As already stated my most preferred option at the moment would be to use the same three statements on both footers (so we can mention "Bitwarden®" as often as possible or see my better reasons above ☝️ ), which I have tried to reduce to the essentials I would like to convey: "Vaultwarden is an unofficial Bitwarden® server. Vaultwarden Web is a modified version of the Bitwarden® Web Vault. The Vaultwarden project is not associated with the Bitwarden® project nor Bitwarden, Inc." To make the footer less obtrusive we could also reduce the font-size and/or the whitespace around it (which is rather high with a padding of 40px). However, I agree that it might not be necessary to use the same statements in both footers. So maybe we can save some space by not using the last sentence? (Which is probably the most dispensable one because I rather we mention both Vaultwarden as well as the modifications to the Bitwarden® Web-Vault and not something that is probably superfluous). |
933109d
to
60bde95
Compare
While testing the edit: should be an easy fix dani-garcia/vaultwarden#3797 |
Vaultwarden Web
, get rid of 404 page and update to web-v2023.8.0Vaultwarden Web
, get rid of 404 page and update to web-v2023.8.2
So does this mean that the org creation will fail on 2023.8.2, if dani-garcia/vaultwarden#3797 has not been merged? |
It will not work and say something along the line that you have not selected a plan. (And you can't because the required component is just missing and I have not figured out how to make the API call obsolete.) |
after testing my 2fa policy removal change with |
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.
Overall it looks good.
I have not build it my self, and browsed through it though.
Vaultwarden Web
, get rid of 404 page and update to web-v2023.8.2Vaultwarden Web
53537cb
to
88ca714
Compare
in web-v2023.8.x the pageTitle (i.e. "$APP_NAME Web Vault") was removed, so instead of using the hardcoded replacement, we replace the name of the project `Vaultwarden Web` the footer is changed again from v2023.7.1 for better legibility. compared to the previous patch files some changes are purely cosmetic due to running prettier and eslint. and we don't need to change or pack the 404.html file since Vaultwarden already provides a 404 page
88ca714
to
5f58716
Compare
Ok, i think this works, I'm not fully sure on the text in the middle, but i'm also not against it. Not sure what @dani-garcia thinks about this change? Regarding the I'm fine if you want to remove this via this PR. |
currently it fails (because it can't resolve the $tailwindcss reference) but also in general we might not want to depend on automatic updating the dependencies without checking them first.
okay, I've added a commit that removes the |
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 good to me, thanks everyone!
It seems that in the next release, the translation key
pageTitle
will be removed (see bitwarden/clients#5780) and replaced by a new one calledbitWebVault
where Bitwarden is hardcoded in themessages.json
files. I would use that as opportunity to rectify the issue that @tessus has brought up in #131 by reverting the change and renaming the modified web-vault toVaultwarden Web
instead (omitting the last Vault as we already have that in Vaultwarden itself).If we want to credit Bitwardenı® Web Vault in the client itself (which arguably we don't have to), I think we could add another row to the footer, where we can have a better phrase without parentheses, e.g.
Since we don't use this 404 page anymore, I think it would make sense to remove it from the patch file and just don't ship it in
apps/web/webpack.config.js
.And because I have been testing a different way of managing the changes (see #137), I would appreciate it, if we could run a linter and prettier before creating a patch, so it's easier to keep the changes in sync. I mean, those are mostly superficial changes but I think they don't really hurt either and we also require
cargo fmt
andclippy
for Vaultwarden.