raucao/inspektor
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 7 Pull Requests Releases 9 Activity

/connect form not accessible when storage is already connected #7

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-06-14 00:18:20 +00:00 by colby · 3 comments
colby commented 2026-06-14 00:18:20 +00:00
Copy Link
Copy Source

Addendum to #6; steps to reproduce:

  1. Make sure you've already gone through auth for inspektor to connect to your storage provider
  2. Visit https://inspektor.5apps.com/connect

Actual results:

User is redirected to https://inspektor.5apps.com/ (the main application view)

Expected results:

User is prompted to fast-switch (no intermediate "disconnect" step) between two different remoteStorage-enabled accounts or given the alternative choice to go back to the main application view.

Addendum to #6; steps to reproduce: 1. Make sure you've already gone through auth for inspektor to connect to your storage provider 2. Visit <https://inspektor.5apps.com/connect> Actual results: User is redirected to <https://inspektor.5apps.com/> (the main application view) Expected results: User is prompted to fast-switch (no intermediate "disconnect" step) between two different remoteStorage-enabled accounts or given the alternative choice to go back to the main application view.
raucao commented 2026-06-15 09:49:30 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

There is currently no way to have two different accounts connected with remoteStorage.js, so we cannot implement this at the moment.

There is currently no way to have two different accounts connected with remoteStorage.js, so we cannot implement this at the moment.
raucao added the feature label 2026-06-15 09:49:49 +00:00
raucao changed title from /connect when already logged in redirects to main application view to Connect multiple accounts at once 2026-06-15 09:49:59 +00:00
raucao changed title from Connect multiple accounts at once to Connect multiple accounts 2026-06-15 09:50:04 +00:00
colby commented 2026-06-15 17:51:22 +00:00
Author
Copy Link
Copy Source

To clarify:

Right now, /connect is only valid for users who haven't gone through auth, and /disconnect is only valid for those who have.

/disconnect will allow those who have to disconnect, whereas those who are already disconnected are redirected to /connect and prompted to "Connect your storage".

/connect will allow those who haven't gone through auth to do so, whereas for those who already have, users get punted to the main application view.

This bug is about whether or not it's reasonable for a user to expect /connect to give them the same/similar "Connect your storage" prompt even if they've already gone through auth, and what the effect of that form should be. However, this bug is not about allowing users to connect to multiple accounts. (I don't think that would be a very good idea to implement.)

For any user who hasn't yet connected to any storage space, the prompt should continue to behave the way it does now.

For a user alice@example.com who has already connected to her storage, hitting /connect should:

  • explain that she's alice@example.com com and inspektor already knows it
  • present an option (i.e. a button) of (a) of disconnecting from this identity/storage space
  • present the option to (b) enter a different identity/storage space
  • present the option to (c) just return to the main application view

The effect of choosing B and entering alice@kosmos.example should be to disconnect from alice@example.com and connect to alice@kosmos.example.

To clarify: Right now, /connect is only valid for users who haven't gone through auth, and /disconnect is only valid for those who have. /disconnect will allow those who have to disconnect, whereas those who are already disconnected are redirected to /connect and prompted to "Connect your storage". /connect will allow those who haven't gone through auth to do so, whereas for those who already have, users get punted to the main application view. This bug is about whether or not it's reasonable for a user to expect /connect to give them the same/similar "Connect your storage" prompt even if they've already gone through auth, and what the effect of that form should be. However, this bug is not about allowing users to connect to multiple accounts. (I don't think that would be a very good idea to implement.) For any user who hasn't yet connected to any storage space, the prompt should continue to behave the way it does now. For a user alice@example.com who has already connected to her storage, hitting /connect should: - explain that she's alice@example.com com and inspektor already knows it - present an option (i.e. a button) of (a) of disconnecting from this identity/storage space - present the option to (b) enter a different identity/storage space - present the option to (c) just return to the main application view The effect of choosing B and entering alice@kosmos.example should be to disconnect from alice@example.com and connect to alice@kosmos.example.
colby changed title from Connect multiple accounts to /connect redirects to main application view when already logged in 2026-06-15 17:51:55 +00:00
colby changed title from /connect redirects to main application view when already logged in to /connect form not accessible when storage is already connected 2026-06-15 17:52:28 +00:00
raucao commented 2026-06-16 12:56:05 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

In that case, the current behavior is already correct. Users are not supposed to use URLs for UI actions. You can just click "disconnect" and then connect with a different account. The app always shows which account is connected in the top left corner.

In that case, the current behavior is already correct. Users are not supposed to use URLs for UI actions. You can just click "disconnect" and then connect with a different account. The app always shows which account is connected in the top left corner.
raucao added the wontfix label 2026-06-16 12:56:37 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
bug
Something is not working
 dev environment
Config, builds, CI, deployment, etc.
 docs
Documentation
 duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists
 enhancement
Improving existing functionality
 feature
New functionality
 idea
Something to consider
 invalid
Not a bug
 question
Looking for an answer
 security
All your base are belong to us
 ui/ux
User interface, process design, etc.
 wontfix
This won't be fixed
No Label feature wontfix
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
raucao (Râu Cao)
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: raucao/inspektor#7
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?