Say what turning on System Safety will cover - #285
Merged
Conversation
Setting an auth tier, or a grace period above zero, is the moment the safety settings start doing anything: at the `none` tier with no grace, a ticked category enforces nothing. So somebody who sets a tier to get a password prompt before deletions has, in the same action, put that prompt in front of every other ticked category - including Profile visibility, which is the one category that ships on and therefore the one they never switched on themselves. That is the reported surprise: a safeguard doing its job, experienced as a malfunction. The Safety page now says so before the save, lists what will be covered, and names Profile visibility explicitly as on-by-default rather than something the user chose, with a pointer to untick it if they meant this for deletions only. The wording adapts to what is actually being armed, so a grace window says publishing will now wait rather than implying only a re-auth. Silent on an ordinary save: it appears only when a change is arming something, which is what keeps it worth reading. The one-item case is deliberately not listed twice - when profile visibility is the only category covered, the callout below already names it and a restating list reads as a stutter.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Setting an auth tier, or a grace period above zero, is the moment the safety settings start doing anything. At the
nonetier with no grace, a ticked category enforces nothing: it is a label. So somebody who sets a tier to get a password prompt before deletions has, in the same action, put that prompt in front of every other ticked category, including Profile visibility - the one category that ships on, and therefore the one they never switched on themselves.That is a reported surprise: a safeguard doing exactly its job, experienced as a malfunction.
What it does
Before the save, the Safety page now states what is about to be enforced, lists what it covers, and names Profile visibility explicitly as on-by-default rather than something the user chose, with a pointer to untick it if they meant this for deletions only.
The wording follows what is actually being armed. A tier alone says the actions will ask you to re-authenticate; a grace window alone says they will wait it out (so a three-day grace tells you publishing now waits, rather than leaving you to discover it three days later); both says both.
It is silent on an ordinary save. It only appears when a change is arming something, which is what keeps it worth reading rather than something to click past.
Scope
Frontend only. No API change, no backend change, no new state: everything needed is already in the settings response, and the tier-comparison helper already existed for
detectLoosening.Verified
Checked against a running instance rather than type-checked alone, in all three states: silent beforehand, tier-only, and tier plus grace.
Looking at it caught something types could not - with only Profile visibility ticked, a "Covered: Profile visibility" line was immediately restated by the callout below it. That list is now skipped in the one-item case.
Notes
A first-run disclosure already exists: the welcome dialog offers a "Configure System Safety" card and already says profile-visibility protection is on by default. It shipped, it is accurate, and somebody was surprised anyway - which is the argument for disclosing at the moment the setting acquires teeth rather than adding a louder version at signup, when nothing has happened for it to attach to.
Design write-up lives in the design-docs repo (
system-safety-disclosure.md). Re-acknowledgement for newly added categories is deliberately parked there rather than built, since profile visibility looks like a one-off.Still open, and a product call rather than a technical one: whether a blanket grace period should apply to profile visibility at all. Someone setting "3 day grace" is probably thinking about deletions, not about their publishing being delayed.