feat(server, web): partner share persons/faces #7045
Conversation
I specifically don't. As stated in the PR message:
Yes, they will appear twice and no, it's not possible to merge own and partner's persons. I made this pull request to get the basic functionality going (and that will cover a lot of the referenced feature requests I think). Meanwhile, I started that discussion thread in the hope to get some discussion going on where to go next. In my opinion, a partner share should be near equivalent to your own libraries.. Though some might very likely disagree. |
|
Right, I think it should be clear in the WebUI what you can modify and what you can't.
I agree but that's a technical challenge as soon as you have multiple partners : Let's say you have users A, B and C. If users A-B and A-C are partners, B and C must not see each other's faces / people. |
|
You are right, that will be a challenge. Suggest moving that discussion to #7038 as it's not really related to the PR (as it stand at least) |
Totally agree by the way! A little icon in the corner or something, indicating that this person object is shared to you would be awesome. (think I saw several request for various variants of that on other areas too in the discussion section).. Not sure if I'm up to that task though. |
old-school :-D
add the withPartners flag to /person endpoint, should allow requesting person objects shared by the partner in a similar way that the assets endpoint is doing feature request immich-app#6339 immich-app#5089 immich-app#5457 immich-app#7038
make it possible for frontend to visualize the fact that this is a shared person f.ex with a small icon or hiding actions like merge, change name etc that will fail due to share beeing read-only.
ttyridal
force-pushed
the
feat/partnershare_persons
branch
from
69f58d8
to
fa04b02
Compare
|
Does this PR have a future or is this functionality planned to be implemented in some other way? |
|
@Yetangitu I was debating to merge the PR but what is stopping me is that this might cause confusion because the facial data isn't technically shared and synced between shared accounts. I think it would be better for us to wait and implement it the proper way |
|
@alextran1502 Unfortunately I missed that debate. Could you give a short summary of the objections? What's meant by "isn't technically shared and synced between shared accounts" f.ex? or thoughts on the "proper way".. Really want the functionality, so I would probably be willing to invest some time on this :) |
|
this is a really important missing feature. anyone a update on this? |
|
I'm not sure it would help, but wanted to give another use case here. i have tons of photos made in the past and just want to host them and allow partner to see them as well. So in that case it's not about use it to add new photos, but more one person that would add fresh photos of both me and partner, and then second person would be viewing them. I agree that seeing duplicated faces might be confusing, but for this specific use case - it won't matter that much. |
|
+1 for this feature |
Any update on this topi? Could you please share a view on how this feature should be better implemented if the current PR is not good enough as a starting point? |
|
Just my thoughts: Maybe just an checkbox during sharing would be enough, to give the user who is sharing the library an choice. PS.: It would be so nice if this get's merged. |
|
+1 for this feature |
|
+1 for this |
|
As we are working toward separating the asset relationship, which will ultimately help to solve this use case, I will be closing this PR since it is stale and not the direction we would take to handle this sharing mechanism |
This PR will bring the partner's persons/faces into the sharedTo-user's explorer UI
ref discussions: #7038 #5089 #6339 #5457 and probably more
The /person endpoint gains a withPartners flag and web UI is updated to set it.
Remains to include withPartners flag when requesting timeBuckets when personId is set, but thought it would be nice to get some review going :)Opportunistically including all parter ids when building time-bucket with the personId option set could potentially be an overkill?
The shared persons will still behave a bit "strange" (ref #7038) - they are read only!