Remove SSR settings

[jorgeAcostaVTEX]

What problem is this solving?

Offers still being sent due to SSR settings

How to test it?

Check page source and look for "offers"
Workspace

Screenshots or example usage:

Describe alternatives you've considered, if any.

Related to / Depends on

How does this PR make you feel? 🔗

![](put .gif link here - can be found under "advanced" on giphy)

[vtex-io-ci-cd]

Hi! I'm VTEX IO CI/CD Bot and I'll be helping you to publish your app! 🤖

Please select which version do you want to release:

• Patch (backwards-compatible bug fixes)

• Minor (backwards-compatible functionality)

• Major (incompatible API changes)

And then you just need to merge your PR when you are ready! There is no need to create a release commit/tag.

• No thanks, I would rather do it manually 😞

[vtex-io-docs-bot]

Beep boop 🤖

I noticed you didn't make any changes at the docs/ folder

• There's nothing new to document 🤔
• I'll do it later 😞

In order to keep track, I'll create an issue if you decide now is not a good time

• I just updated 🎉🎉

[iago1501]

Hi @jorgeAcostaVTEX , why not simply remove the offers when in closed tp instead of adding an app flag and changing the ssr?

Also, I'm not confident about increase server load time just to get the app settings here

[jorgeAcostaVTEX]

Hi @iago1501 ! Thanks for taking a look! That makes sense, but is there a way to tell if a Trade Policy is closed?

[iago1501]

Yep, something like we do here checking the sessionResponse from render-runtime:

https://github.com/vtex-apps/challenge-tp-condition/blob/41d6c2255d0f5fde6a26b543fcf95969e9d47e8c/react/ChallengeTradePolicyCondition.tsx#L76-L87

If the store is closed or B2B, then, only authorized users will access it, and, if that's the case, you will have a condition in the TP that you can check if the user is allowed or not

[iago1501]

Closing this PR due to lack of interaction, if you want to discuss something else about the implementation, please, feel free to reopen it or let me know 👋🏻

[iago1501]

Not approved due: #42 (comment)