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

Small thing I think make sense #1

Open
jduarte opened this issue Mar 4, 2010 · 2 comments
Open

Small thing I think make sense #1

jduarte opened this issue Mar 4, 2010 · 2 comments

Comments

@jduarte
Copy link

jduarte commented Mar 4, 2010

Hi John,

First of all, congrats on this gem. I really think it's well thought and designed!

I was seeing your example and I think that the method destroyable_by? should default to updatable_by? instead of true like you show in your README example.

What do you think?

Greetings,

@jnunemaker
Copy link
Owner

Why?

@jduarte
Copy link
Author

jduarte commented Mar 4, 2010

By default if only some users are able to update a record, only the same users are able to destroy it.
When I think in real-life apps I've made nobody without access to update an object has permissions to destroy that same object.

Greets

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants