G'day Tones, I've got editing and delete of important tiddlers blocked via tiddler locking. That's easy and good.
The only thing I have to handle, even if 99% unlikely, is certain tiddlers getting overwritten by any tech-savvy (well, TiddlyWiki-savvy) individual. Since that can't really be prevented, then a scheduled process to compare files should be pretty easy (for all of these TiddlyWiki instances on node.js) Just a matter of comparing "end-user" tiddlers to "architecture/infrastructure/farm/admin/etc .) tiddlers, and having the process delete anything that shouldn't exist in end-users' tiddler folders. Maybe another little process to raise the redflag as soon as there's a blip. I am avoiding plugins and staying pure node.js and tiddlywiki for as much as I can, an exercise to really get a good feel for how TiddlyWiki works on node.js. For the near future. All of these goodies you mention in my back-pocket for now. Thanks ! On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:03:27 AM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: > Charlie, > > A few ideas; > > One way would be to stash a copy away, perhaps inside a JSON tiddler, > similar to Mohammad's trash plugin but just on editing. This kind of > solution can intercept User interface edit/delete however batch processes > can by pass this. > > Some solutions like noteself to keep all versions, so you could restore > from there, after running an automated are tiddlers missing check, perhaps > before saving. > > You could also modify the delete button to refuse to delete if a tiddler > contains a field delete-inhibit=yes or just exists. I have already made an > alternate edit button which honors edit-inhibit and just hide the original > edit behind the more button. On some wikis we may want to hide the more > button so they can not access (directly) the buttons we do not want them to > use and only provide them alternatives, we want them to use. When the cant > edit or delete you can actually just hide that alternative button. > > Another is to take a set of tiddlers, and move them into a plugin, delete > the tiddler version. They then become shadows, and if edited you simply > delete the tiddler to return to the shadow copy. The only way to delete the > shadows is to delete the plugin itself, so the user needs to undertake > additional steps. This can avoid batch processes deleting the tiddlers. > > I have felt that for some time introducing delete-inhibit and edit-inhibit > fields/flags on at least some tiddlers would be a helpful option. For > example the plugin mentioned in the last paragraph. > > I am yet to work out how but I believe the new eventCatcher widget or the > existing LinkCatcherWidget or ActionConfirmWidget can help here. > > One idea would be trapping using the action confirm widget on the delete > step, and on confirmation make a backup copy of the tiddler. > > Tones > > On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 11:01:25 UTC+10 [email protected] wrote: > >> Trying to achieve a robust architecture for a farm of node.js TiddlyWikis >> that together form a distributed database, with end-user level (and >> private) TiddlyWikis that have certain types of tiddlers that are >> automagically shared (and the rest private), and system-level TiddlyWikis >> that tie all of the architecture together along with user-interface stuff, >> etc. etc. etc. >> >> Sure, not very likely end-user folk could muck things up, but a robust >> system really should never allow an end-user to break their TiddlyWiki (in >> this farm idea of mine) by somehow replacing any key component tiddler. >> >> No worries. I'll train my thoughts on obfuscation, risk-mitigation >> design/strategies, and automated monitoring/repairing processes. >> >> All part of a big idea that ties together, in part: >> >> - A brewing idea: TiddlyWiki on node.js: check for changes >> <https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/GMagvXTOxLI/m/POV20R69AwAJ> >> - More playing around with TiddlyWiki on node.js: the makings of a >> distributed database >> <https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/OuYwkSgPBDo/m/egsk9fhoAwAJ> >> >> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:18:19 PM UTC-3 PMario wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:36:26 PM UTC+2 [email protected] >>> wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>> Is there an easy way to protect such a tiddler? >>>> >>> >>> No. In TW you can overwrite every core tiddler if you like. So there is >>> no way to write-protect a tiddler. >>> What do you want to achieve? >>> -m >>> >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/f78c2971-14ad-4049-a023-1666bc0f35f7n%40googlegroups.com.
