mirror of
https://github.com/antonioribeiro/google2fa.git
synced 2026-04-25 08:05:49 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #17] feature request: using qrcodejs to remove dependency simplesoftwareio/simple-qrcode #476
Labels
No labels
bug
pull-request
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/google2fa#476
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @ryh on GitHub (Oct 25, 2015).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/antonioribeiro/google2fa/issues/17
feature request: using
qrcodejsto remove dependencysimplesoftwareio/simple-qrcodeshow QRCode is a front-end need, so it is reasonable to achieve it in
Client Sidewith javascript.qrcodejs is a perfect solution for this.
(leave the show QRCode task to the front-end guy 🎃 )
ext-gd and simplesoftwareio/simple-qrcode are heavy dependency for 2fa server side package
@antonioribeiro commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2015):
I can do that.
Is everyone okay with removing it?
@nathanmac commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2015):
👍
@cpwc commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2015):
👍
@vinicius73 commented on GitHub (Jan 2, 2016):
👍
@aik099 commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2016):
The dependency can be moved to
suggestpart incomposer.json. Then in places, where library is used the exception can be thrown, when dependency isn't installed.@it-can commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2016):
👍
@aik099 commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2016):
Anyone doing 👍 are welcome to send a PR as well.
@barryvdh commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2016):
The dependency is a little bit less heavy now with #36, but you could still submit a PR if you need.
@antonioribeiro commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2016):
Moved to suggest. I will probably tag 1.0 soon, as this is a breaking change.
I could tag it 0.9, but it would not break only if people is requiring
^0.8, instead of~0.8.So, should I still tag a minor?
@GrahamCampbell commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2016):
People who have
~0.8would expect it to be broken. They are doing that knowing that it could break. I'd say just break it in 0.9.0.@antonioribeiro commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2016):
Whoops! Just tagged it 1.0.0 :/
@antonioribeiro commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2016):
Not everyone knows the difference between ~ and ^ on composer when the major version == 0. I myself had some pain with it a while ago.
@barryvdh commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2016):
If they don't know the difference, they should just use
0.8.x;) But this is fine too :)