Overview - Ghost

7 days30 days

Latest CI Pipeline Executions

Fuzzy

Succeeded
30306
87f27c4a Added a tier's checkout configuration and the bindings it writes through A publisher can now say what a tier's checkout asks for beyond the payment, and where each answer is kept. The answer to where is a binding: it names the source that collects, the source's own word for the thing, and the field the value lands in. Everything that writes into a member's custom fields goes through one, so what writes into a field is a single join rather than a different one per writer. Where a value lands and whether it is being collected are one row, because holding them apart in two tables let them disagree, with no composite foreign key or check constraint able to stop it: a tier could ask for something with nowhere to put it, or go on receiving what a publisher had turned off. The row is the collecting. There is one and the source writes through it, or there is none and it does not. Where each value lands is stated by the request rather than worked out on the publisher's behalf. A field the site already keeps under that key has to be active and hold the kind of thing the port supplies; a key it does not keep yet is made into a field, listed under the name the port carries. Anything else is refused, because a checkout quietly collecting into somewhere other than the field a publisher named is worse than one that says it cannot. Nothing sends any of this to a payment processor yet, and every route that changes it is behind the members custom fields flag. ref https://linear.app/ghost/issue/BER-3872
by Rob Lester
Succeeded
30306
46b59ed5 Added a tier's checkout configuration and the bindings it writes through A publisher can now say what a tier's checkout asks for beyond the payment, and where each answer is kept. The answer to where is a binding: it names the source that collects, the source's own word for the thing, and the field the value lands in. Everything that writes into a member's custom fields goes through one, so what writes into a field is a single join rather than a different one per writer. Where a value lands and whether it is being collected are one row, because holding them apart in two tables let them disagree, with no composite foreign key or check constraint able to stop it: a tier could ask for something with nowhere to put it, or go on receiving what a publisher had turned off. A binding outlives the collection it carries, so turning collection off keeps the record of where the value went and turning it on again finds the same field rather than making a second one beside it. Turning collection on always succeeds. A publisher who names a field gets that field; one who names none gets whatever this tier already used, or whatever another tier settled on, or a field made for them. Nothing sends any of this to a payment processor yet, and every route that changes it is behind the members custom fields flag. ref https://linear.app/ghost/issue/BER-3872
by Rob Lester
Failed
30306
84157a20 Added a tier's checkout configuration and the bindings it writes through A publisher can now say what a tier's checkout asks for beyond the payment, and where each answer is kept. The answer to where is a binding: it names the source that collects, the source's own word for the thing, and the field the value lands in. Everything that writes into a member's custom fields goes through one, so what writes into a field is a single join rather than a different one per writer. Where a value lands and whether it is being collected are one row, because holding them apart in two tables let them disagree, with no composite foreign key or check constraint able to stop it: a tier could ask for something with nowhere to put it, or go on receiving what a publisher had turned off. A binding outlives the collection it carries, so turning collection off keeps the record of where the value went and turning it on again finds the same field rather than making a second one beside it. Turning collection on always succeeds. A publisher who names a field gets that field; one who names none gets whatever this tier already used, or whatever another tier settled on, or a field made for them. Nothing sends any of this to a payment processor yet, and every route that changes it is behind the members custom fields flag. ref https://linear.app/ghost/issue/BER-3872
by Rob Lester
Failed
30306
5cdcf036 Added a tier's checkout configuration and the bindings it writes through A publisher can now say what a tier's checkout asks for beyond the payment, and where each answer is kept. The answer to where is a binding: it names the source that collects, the source's own word for the thing, and the field the value lands in. Everything that writes into a member's custom fields goes through one, so what writes into a field is a single join rather than a different one per writer. Where a value lands and whether it is being collected are one row, because holding them apart in two tables let them disagree, with no composite foreign key or check constraint able to stop it: a tier could ask for something with nowhere to put it, or go on receiving what a publisher had turned off. A binding outlives the collection it carries, so turning collection off keeps the record of where the value went and turning it on again finds the same field rather than making a second one beside it. Turning collection on always succeeds. A publisher who names a field gets that field; one who names none gets whatever this tier already used, or whatever another tier settled on, or a field made for them. Nothing sends any of this to a payment processor yet, and every route that changes it is behind the members custom fields flag. ref https://linear.app/ghost/issue/BER-3872
by Rob Lester
Failed
30306
d3aad0a7 Added a tier's checkout configuration and the bindings it writes through A publisher can now say what a tier's checkout asks for beyond the payment, and where each answer is kept. The answer to where is a binding: it names the source that collects, the source's own word for the thing, and the field the value lands in. Everything that writes into a member's custom fields goes through one, so what writes into a field is a single join rather than a different one per writer. Where a value lands and whether it is being collected are one row, because holding them apart in two tables let them disagree, with no composite foreign key or check constraint able to stop it: a tier could ask for something with nowhere to put it, or go on receiving what a publisher had turned off. A binding outlives the collection it carries, so turning collection off keeps the record of where the value went and turning it on again finds the same field rather than making a second one beside it. Turning collection on always succeeds. A publisher who names a field gets that field; one who names none gets whatever this tier already used, or whatever another tier settled on, or a field made for them. Nothing sends any of this to a payment processor yet, and every route that changes it is behind the members custom fields flag. ref https://linear.app/ghost/issue/BER-3872
by Rob Lester
Failed
30306
d2cb261d Added a tier's checkout configuration and the bindings it writes through A publisher can now say what a tier's checkout asks for beyond the payment, and where each answer is kept. The answer to where is a binding: it names the source that collects, the source's own word for the thing, and the field the value lands in. Everything that writes into a member's custom fields goes through one, so what writes into a field is a single join rather than a different one per writer. Where a value lands and whether it is being collected are one row, because holding them apart in two tables let them disagree, with no composite foreign key or check constraint able to stop it: a tier could ask for something with nowhere to put it, or go on receiving what a publisher had turned off. A binding outlives the collection it carries, so turning collection off keeps the record of where the value went and turning it on again finds the same field rather than making a second one beside it. Turning collection on always succeeds. A publisher who names a field gets that field; one who names none gets whatever this tier already used, or whatever another tier settled on, or a field made for them. Nothing sends any of this to a payment processor yet, and every route that changes it is behind the members custom fields flag. ref https://linear.app/ghost/issue/BER-3872
by Rob Lester
Failed
30306
7ffd491b Added a tier's checkout configuration and the bindings it writes through A publisher can now say what a tier's checkout asks for beyond the payment, and where each answer is kept. The answer to where is a binding: it names the source that collects, the source's own word for the thing, and the field the value lands in. Everything that writes into a member's custom fields goes through one, so what writes into a field is a single join rather than a different one per writer. Where a value lands and whether it is being collected are one row, because holding them apart in two tables let them disagree, with no composite foreign key or check constraint able to stop it: a tier could ask for something with nowhere to put it, or go on receiving what a publisher had turned off. A binding outlives the collection it carries, so turning collection off keeps the record of where the value went and turning it on again finds the same field rather than making a second one beside it. Turning collection on always succeeds. A publisher who names a field gets that field; one who names none gets whatever this tier already used, or whatever another tier settled on, or a field made for them. Nothing sends any of this to a payment processor yet, and every route that changes it is behind the members custom fields flag. ref https://linear.app/ghost/issue/BER-3872
by Rob Lester
Failed
30306
153370c6 Added a tier's checkout configuration and the bindings it writes through A publisher can now say what a tier's checkout asks for beyond the payment, and where each answer is kept. The answer to where is a binding: it names the source that collects, the source's own word for the thing, and the field the value lands in. Everything that writes into a member's custom fields goes through one, so what writes into a field is a single join rather than a different one per writer. Where a value lands and whether it is being collected are one row, because holding them apart in two tables let them disagree, with no composite foreign key or check constraint able to stop it: a tier could ask for something with nowhere to put it, or go on receiving what a publisher had turned off. A binding outlives the collection it carries, so turning collection off keeps the record of where the value went and turning it on again finds the same field rather than making a second one beside it. Turning collection on always succeeds. A publisher who names a field gets that field; one who names none gets whatever this tier already used, or whatever another tier settled on, or a field made for them. Nothing sends any of this to a payment processor yet, and every route that changes it is behind the members custom fields flag. ref https://linear.app/ghost/issue/BER-3872
by Rob Lester