Charlie, *My problem is about preventing tiddlers from being overwritten by an import or by a new tiddler getting created and saved with a name of a tiddler that already exists. That's not solved.*
But in my earlier reply, I think we can solve this issue by moving the "readonly" tiddlers to a plugin where they become shadow tiddlers. Effectively thus protected tiddlers, Unless the plugin is deleted they will always be there "in the shadows", it would then be simple to detect any edited tiddlers and delete the update reverting to the shadow. Keep in mind the shadow tiddlers can be any name not just system tiddlers. I can pursue this for you if you want? I would make; - An easy way to move a selected tiddler into the safety of a plugin, making it a "protected tiddler". - Provide away to detect edited "protected tiddlers" and restore them automatically. Regards Tones On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 15:54:13 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, "Tiddly Locking" isn't a solution to my problem in this thread. > > My problem is about preventing tiddlers from being overwritten by an > import or by a new tiddler getting created and saved with a name of a > tiddler that already exists. That's not solved. > > Tiddly Locking is great, is something I use, but has nothing to do with > this thread. > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 2:34:45 AM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: > >> Charlie, >> >> Good to hear. Since you question was answered with "Tiddly locking" could >> you point to that as a solution for future readers in this thread ? >> >> Tones >> >> On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 15:15:49 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> 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 cj.v...@gmail.com 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 cj.v...@gmail.com >>>>>> 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b07381be-8fd0-4c6f-bf4a-5ba8e35fbaddn%40googlegroups.com.
