Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Local User Request Limit Override Not Persisting #1367

Closed
1 task done
JamsRepos opened this issue Feb 17, 2025 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1389
Closed
1 task done

Local User Request Limit Override Not Persisting #1367

JamsRepos opened this issue Feb 17, 2025 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1389
Labels
bug Something isn't working more information needed

Comments

@JamsRepos
Copy link

Description

When attempting to set a request limit override on a Local User in JellySeerr, the change does not persist after saving. However, performing the same action on a Jellyfin user works as expected.

Version

2.3.0

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Go to Users in JellySeerr.
  2. Select a Local User.
  3. Set a request limit override and save.
  4. Refresh the page or navigate away and return.
  5. Observe that the override has not persisted.

Screenshots

Pre-Save
Image
After-Save
Image

Logs

Platform

desktop

Database

SQLite (default)

Device

PC

Operating System

Windows 11

Browser

Firefox

Additional Context

No response

Code of Conduct

  • I agree to follow Jellyseerr's Code of Conduct
@JamsRepos JamsRepos added awaiting triage This issue needs to be reviewed bug Something isn't working labels Feb 17, 2025
@gauthier-th
Copy link
Collaborator

I can't reproduce this on v2.3.0 or on develop.
Is there anything specific with your local user?

@gauthier-th gauthier-th added more information needed and removed awaiting triage This issue needs to be reviewed labels Feb 17, 2025
@fallenbagel
Copy link
Owner

Cannot reproduce this on v2.3.0 either:
Pre-Save
Screenshot_20250218_060737_Chrome Dev.jpg

After save and navigating out and back in:
Screenshot_20250218_060744_Chrome Dev.jpg

@JamsRepos
Copy link
Author

Image

@JamsRepos
Copy link
Author

JamsRepos commented Feb 17, 2025

It seems this is my error popping up:

Image

May be to do with the casing? After setting an email the error goes yet creating a user email is optional.

@gauthier-th
Copy link
Collaborator

This is something introduced by #900.
There was a misunderstanding, and the requirement to have a mandatory email for local users was removed, when it shouldn't have been.

I'll make a patch soon to add the requirement back, but in the meantime, you should set an email for you local users.

@JamsRepos
Copy link
Author

This is something introduced by #900. There was a misunderstanding, and the requirement to have a mandatory email for local users was removed, when it shouldn't have been.

I'll make a patch soon to add the requirement back, but in the meantime, you should set an email for you local users.

Yeah - this has been done in the meantime, thanks!

gauthier-th added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 22, 2025
Because of a misunderstanding, and the requirement to have a mandatory email for local users was
removed, when it shouldn't have been.

re #900
fix #1367
gauthier-th added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2025
* fix: add email requirement for local users

Because of a misunderstanding, and the requirement to have a mandatory email for local users was
removed, when it shouldn't have been.

re #900
fix #1367

* fix: add missing check for Emby
RankWeis pushed a commit to RankWeis/jellyseerr that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
* fix: add email requirement for local users

Because of a misunderstanding, and the requirement to have a mandatory email for local users was
removed, when it shouldn't have been.

re fallenbagel#900
fix fallenbagel#1367

* fix: add missing check for Emby
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working more information needed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants