Tailwind 3 -> 4 migration renamed `ring` -> `ring-3`, but colors like
`ring-cyan-200` were also changed to `ring-3-cyan-200` which doesn't
actually exist.
broken in ac8e2e8cd6
See #225 (the present commit is related, but not a full fix)
"In principle" setting `SCRIPT_NAME` is enough. The way we do this is [1] using
`FORCE_SCRIPT_NAME` (which does not depend on messing with reverse proxy
settings and [2] by deducing the correct value from `BASE_URL` (which must be
set anyway) automatically.
By works I mean: `reverse` and `{% url` pick it up from there.
However, there are subtleties / extra work:
* `STATIC_URL` is needed too b/c https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/34028
* in many pre-existing code I just created a path manually in the html. Such
hrefs are obviously not magically fixed for script_name. Rather than doing
the "full rewrite" (into `{% url`) this commit just prepends the
`script_name` in those cases. That's the way forward that will least likely
break and it gives us something to grep for if we ever want to 'do it
right'.
* `LOGIN_REDIRECT_URL` and `LOGIN_URL` needed to use a view-name for this to
work (using a view-name gets revolved using the thing that introduces
`script_name`)
Checked, no work needed:
* views (`redirect` and `HttpResponseRedirect`)
* html uses of action="..."
Fix#93
Implement delete functionality with confirmation modals for projects.
cherry picked (by Klaas) from commit 6764fbf343fb; but:
* projects only
* `delete_deferred`
* flake8
See #84 for the original PR
Fix#56
Looked into this for a while, but I think it was simply an oversight in
the logic-as-programmed; if you're part of a team, you should be able
to just click 'join' on any of that team's projects and be a project-member
somewhere, there's a case that such settings need a different level of
authorization; (just because you're the admin of the project doesn't mean you
should be able to do things that affect the system as a whole) but we don't
have such a level ATM.
during user-testing, it was revealed that people think there is something
wrong when they see 'DivisionByZero' when this is in fact precisely what
was intended. Hopefully the new text removes this confusion
