feat(guilds): a guild detail page, and the slot core puts the feed in
The module's half of the org lead's correction: Teams is the contract, guilds are the presentation, and the presentation is this module's. Adds `/uo/guilds/:id` — the detail view the board never had — with the roster from this module's OWN board, which is the same data it answers core's Team provider from. Reading core's projection of our own answer back would be a round trip through a staler copy of it. The page declares `uo.guild.detail` and core fills it with the Team activity feed. That is the one part of this page core cannot hand over: only core can resolve whether the viewer is inside the Team, and the public/members split on that feed is a security boundary. The guild is named in OUR terms — core maps its own Team from the module id and the external id — so this module never holds core's row id or slug. `TeamOverviewStrip` is deleted with the core Team page it filled. `team.member.row` is not declared here either: the useful thing to put in a roster row is a link to the character behind it, and nothing core could supply identifies one. `GET /public/shard/guilds/:id` backs the page, gated and projected through the same `guilds` feature as the board — so an operator who raises that audience raises this too, and the locked acct/webId fields never survive below admin. A roster is where those appear in bulk, which makes this the endpoint where getting the projection wrong would matter most. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ export const shard = {
|
||||
champs: () => req('/public/shard/champs'),
|
||||
// Protocol 2.0 boards.
|
||||
guilds: () => req('/public/shard/guilds'),
|
||||
guild: (id) => req(`/public/shard/guilds/${encodeURIComponent(id)}`),
|
||||
governors: () => req('/public/shard/governors'),
|
||||
governorHistory: (city, limit) =>
|
||||
req(`/public/shard/governors/${encodeURIComponent(city)}/history${withQs(limit ? `limit=${limit}` : '')}`),
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user