-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 458
chore: Add identifier terminology #6220
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
Docker builds report
|
| <FormGroup className='mt-4'> | ||
| <Row space> | ||
| <p className='fs-small lh-sm mb-0'> | ||
| Identities can be re-added here or via one of our |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this is particularly clear - I'm not sure what 'here' means.
I'd say let's be more explicit and go with something like:
"Deleting this identity will delete all of their stored traits, and any identity overrides that you have configured. The identity will be recreated if it is identified via your Flagsmith integration again. You can also recreate it in the dashboard here."
This feels a bit wordy now, so perhaps we can remove some of the details here, but I think we should err towards this, rather than the unclear statement we currently have here.
Thanks for submitting a PR! Please check the boxes below:
docs/if required so people know about the feature!Changes
Since we're using the term "Identifier" as a trait in segment rules, we should do our best to have the term in our identity pages.
Moves delete identity to a danger zone, also removes uses of the word "user"
How did you test this code?
Checked delete identity still worked since this was moved to a danger zone.