Remove SaaS recipe from inner tenants #18397
Conversation
|
Tying the Setup and Tenants modules to a recipe in a theme seems like a very hackish dependency. This much rather needs a properly architected general solution. See #16229 for ideas. However, I don't think this is too high of a priority now. |
|
I have a better solution, but I'd like to keep it simple and allow others to implement SaaS in inner tenants if they need |
|
Then I'd suggest you present that because I don't think this is appropriate to merge. |
|
BTW there's a flaky tests in Linux I just notice in my last two PRs |
|
I agree with @Piedone, it seems to be a hack. I think we should leave it as it is for now, or strive for a complete solution. For example, we could have something in the recipes that connects it with the default tenant. Quite similar to the mentioned issue. |
I agree, and I elaborate why. Let us hear @sebastienros feedback, or someone mention it in the triage |
|
|
||
| if (!_shellSettings.IsDefaultShell()) | ||
| { | ||
| recipes = recipes.Where(r => r.Name != OrchardCoreConstants.Shell.SaasRecipeName); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would use at least use tags instead "not great but works with the same approach we do else where". Someone may have their own default-only recipe. At least with tags we can remove all default-only recipes. We so similar approach in the Recipes admin controller.
|
It seems that this pull request didn't really move for quite a while. Is this something you'd like to revisit any time soon or should we close? Please comment if you'd like to pick it up. |
Addresses #18396