Validate `@oujs:author` to match current username

[Martii]

Currently any username can be put in and allows any @collaborators to show up.

EDIT: Also shows "Submit Code" on Source Code page... although it does 404 when tried to commit. I think this is a good thing although should fail more gracefully.

EDIT: Changed keyname in the subject to our current supported instead of @author.

EDIT: Maybe find script in @oujs:author's list... if not present disable and/or prevent uploading.

[cletusc]

How, if at all, would this affect my script?

// @author Ryan Chatham <ryan.b.chatham@gmail.com> (https://github.com/cletusc)

[Martii]

How, if at all, would this affect my script?

Great question. Basically from my understanding of this is if @author isn't in OUJS format the @collaborators should be ignored and any kind of collaboration will not be available... I don't think this feature is working yet but the first step is to make sure they show for testing. I'm open to suggestions as far as how to handle this within last value used sort of guidelines... currently it is set to unique... so last value is always used in OUJS context.

EDIT: Ideally @copyright would be a more suitable place for your name and website though... @supportURL and @homepageURL supports mailto protocol for your email address. From an educated guess @author was originally designed to work-around USOs lack of a vanity name... e.g. use this key instead of a numeric id.

See tracked:

• Updated AddonManager userscripts to match other addon-types greasemonkey/greasemonkey#1861

So I can possibly recommend:

// @copyright 2014+, Ryan Chatham (https://github.com/cletusc)
// @supportURL mailto:ryan.b.chatham@gmail.com

EDIT: Does any user.js engine have @author officially defined and not conflicting/redundant with @copyright (this key is formatted from copyright.gov. Usually copyright is expressed as © Copyright 2014 Marti Martz, All/Some Rights Reserved but licensing leverages the All/Some Rights Reserved so it is omitted especially in OSI ... the paren'd website is part of your "name" identification)?

[sizzlemctwizzle]

I don't think this feature is working yet

Yeah it is. I updated one of your test scripts a few days ago (you had me listed as a contributor).

[Martii]

Yeah it is

ahh kewl... good to know. :)

[cletusc]

FWIW, I am using the meanings of many keys as the same as how npm handles people in package.json files:

people fields: author, contributors
The "author" is one person. "contributors" is an array of people. A "person" is an object with a "name" field and optionally "url" and "email", like this:
...
Or you can shorten that all into a single string, and npm will parse it for you:
Barney Rubble <b@rubble.com> (http://barnyrubble.tumblr.com/)

There is also a cheat sheet from nodejitsu. I consider the JSON-to-userscript-metadata as any string becomes // @key value and any array becomes multiples of that same format.

My support url should be as I've defined it--I don't want people sending all of their issues to my email, but I still want my email out there.

Edit: Perhaps this might be a key we should keep namespaced to OUJS. If greasyfork implements the same feature, and my username is different from mine here, there will be conflicts. I would prefer @oujs:author cletusc and @oujs:collaborator Martii over trying to redefine what author means.

Edit: maybe we could set a standard for all engines/wikis out there? package.json seems to be a pretty good starting point. ;)

[Zren]

Tbh, collaborators should probably be managed similar to groups, rather than reading it off the script itself.

[cletusc]

Tbh, collaborators should probably be managed similar to groups, rather than reading it off the script itself.

This is an even better option, IMO.

[Martii]

Tbh, collaborators should probably be managed similar to groups, rather than reading it off the script itself.

Not possibly cross site compatible though... but @author has some issues.. which is why it should be validated... and validation can be applied to @contributor too.

[Zren]

Not possibly cross site compatible though.

Which is sort of the point. You're already getting into prefixing the tags because a user might not have the same username on all sites implementing it this way. Which sites support this anyways?

[Martii]

You're already getting into prefixing the tags because a user might not have the same username on all sites implementing it this way.

Which is why I mentioned a little while back we should probably support prefixing with metadata keys e.g. as a rough comparison uso:script, and oujs:script, etc... this wasn't included in the original CI routine import... and I wasn't here yet to throw in my two cents. The prefix is the equivalent of a namespace for anyone using it upstream or cross-stream

As far as:

am using the meanings of many keys as the same as how npm handles people in package.json files

key prefixing could help this e.g. npm:author ... as a root key user.js is not a npm package... this is like trying to get XMP and EXIF in images to use the exact same data structure naming sequence... not going to happen. Root keys should be minimal in general but again I didn't create the new ones here on OUJS and Scriptish defined way too many root keys... he should have prefixed those or not created them imo.

See tracked:

• Feature: Add "more" link on scripts in addon manager greasemonkey/greasemonkey#1944

[sizzlemctwizzle]

collaborators should probably be managed similar to groups, rather than reading it off the script itself.

This is originally what I planned, but then I realized that you use these keys to give people credit already. Why not use them for managing collaborative permissions while you're at it? This way users who have permissions to edit a script are automatically credited/documented in the script.

Anyway, I'm totally fine with using a prefix if we want to go that way.

[Martii]

I'm totally fine with using a prefix if we want to go that way.

Did anyone want it separated out like I do in installWith and Count Issues e.g. meta.uso.script (or meta["uso"]["script"] like I usually do just in case there is a weird character that can't do dot object notation) or just meta["uso:script"] e.g. we'll lose dot object notation in our source? I recommend the former personally from experience.

---

I realized that you use these keys to give people credit already.

That's was a great idea and I'd give it a +1 in retrospect... everyone likes attribution. :) Just needs a prefix ... so I'm +1 for that.

[sizzlemctwizzle]

I prefer the former as well.