-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.7k
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
core: Internal implementation of the "refresh only" planning mode and "replace" planning option #28560
Merged
Merged
core: Internal implementation of the "refresh only" planning mode and "replace" planning option #28560
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
What do you think about changing the name of this to really make the intent obvious? The comment is great, and I'm happy to call it sufficient, but I wouldn't mind renaming the field
ModeForDisplay
or something that's as descriptive as some of our functions that only print for-display-purposes-only strings (literallyForDisplay()
)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.
Ooh! If we foresee other similar fields in the future, I wouldn't be opposed to a
plans.DisplayInfo
(or whatever name makes more sense) struct that contains this information, and those other fields.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.
This is a good point, and the only thing that gives me pause is that we usually use "for display" to mean something than be directly displayed to the user, rather than an indicator used as part of choosing what to display. But the string representations of these modes are not user-friendly, at least as currently designed.
I'm thinking about
ui_mode
as an alternative. I think it isn't quite right but hopefully at least sufficient to prompt a potential user of it to notice the prefix is there and wonder what it means enough to come read this comment. What do you think?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.
r.e. similar fields: I hesitate to generalize this too soon cause we only have two examples of this so far and they've been in different parts of the structure anyway. Since our plan file format isn't something we promise as stable between releases we will be free to reshape this later if we have new requirements that suggest a different design.
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.
Absolutely, I'm down with
ui_mode
- anything that makes the scope of that field unavoidably obvious to a developer (me!) is awesome.I also agree (not that you said this directly) that my second suggestion is a premature optimization, and we can see what's actually useful in time.