Warning intercept execution order

[Cantor, Scott]

On 7/20/21, 11:42 PM, "users on behalf of Paul B. Henson" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of henson at cpp.edu> wrote:

>    Why is it a terrible idea? It's exactly what I'm doing now and it works
>    great.

Because that's how upgrades break, and you don't want that happening when there's a security patch. System files are 100% off limits and you just can't modify flows like that. If you want to do it, just understand that you're off the reservation and I pretty much don't want to know about it. I certainly won't help anyone do it.

If you want to do it, then the right way to do it is to (optionally) implement a patch, and submit a RFE so it's an actual supported feature that won't require system file changes.

>    There is no view?

I meant the client storage view if that's what's stuck displaying. The bulk of that view is exposed for modification IIRC. There are internal parts too but I believe the look and feel is exposed.

>    I'm not sure why the ability to display an "ok, we're done, now you're
>    waiting for the remote service" view as the last thing isn't considered a
>    valid feature for general inclusion. For POST scenarios, you can modify
>    the view, but there's no way to make it work with a redirect AFAICT.

Did you ever file an issue to request it? If not, then how could we have possibly considered it?

-- Scott