-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Add table footer support #114
Conversation
{ #category : #rendering } | ||
WebTableColumnRenderer >> renderFooterCellSummarizing: tableContents on: aCanvas [ | ||
|
||
| heading | |
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.
heading should be footer here
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.
done !
], | ||
#category : #'Willow-WebViews' | ||
} | ||
|
||
{ #category : #'instance creation' } | ||
TableWebView class >> definedBy: aColumnRendererCollection applying: aTableCommand headerRenderedBy: aHeader applyingToEachRow: aRowCommand [ | ||
|
||
^ self |
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.
I wouldn't like to have an explosion of instance creation methods. Tables should always be built with all parameters, and the table builders in each supplier should know to use the null defaults if nothing is specified.
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.
I will go that route but we need to deprecate the previous ones first.. or release a major version ... Maybe we can do that as a two step process? I would like to review the methods in the builder also, because essentially are 3 aspects to consider now: headers, column definitions and footers.. By now I've just added the more generic method with footer support because if we start making each combination it will be an explosion. But now the builder it's a bit verbose for the simple cases with footers :( . What do you think? Release it as is and open an issue to remove the extra instance creation methods and improving the table builder API, or wait for this changes to be made?
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.
Ok, we'll go with the two-step improvement.
Fixes #113