Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
#7750 closed feature request (no action required)
Hiding Activity site-wide also hides it from the component the activity is for
| Reported by: |
|
Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Milestone: | Priority: | normal | |
| Severity: | normal | Version: | |
| Component: | Core | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
I'm writing a plugin that adds Group Only and Friends Only status to posts.
The general idea is to allow members to great posts that will only be seen by friends or group members.
Given that's the use case, I'm looking to be able to display an activity update for that post update to be displayed in the group or member activity feed but not in site-wide activity - since that would display this private content to the site in general, which is not the desired outcome.
However, when adding activity updates I note that setting hide-sitewide to true not only hides the activity from the site-wide activity stream but it also hides it from the components it is desired for.
Would it be possible to add another argument that would set the update to be hidden sitewide but not from the affected component?
Hide-sitewide is a very complex and messy parameter. I believe hide_sidewide is always? used for pairs of activities (i.e one record has it, and an identical second record does not have it).
If you’re trying to use one record, you might be running into this. It’s entirely possible the current system does not do what you want it to do. At any rate, the primary and secondary object IDs are very important to have correct to control the visibility, so those are worth double-checking against an activity record generated by BuddyPress core.
I think I can speak for all long term contributors here when I saw we would be very happy if the privacy and visibility features that this hide-sitewide has would be split into separate columns, or at the very least overhauled with something that makes sense. We are not going to tweak the current behaviour of it due to its complexity, it’s a task that needs a keen contributor to look at.
If a demonstrable bug with the core functionality or its API can be shown, of course we’ll fix it. Because it is undocumented and complex, however, I suspect it’s just missing the functionality you expect it to have.