Skip to content
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

Split state and record for a list item, fixed #129 #130

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Apr 26, 2017

Conversation

dafortin
Copy link
Member

@dafortin dafortin commented Apr 12, 2017

This project uses semver, please check the scope of this pr:

  • #none# - documentation fixes and/or test additions
  • #patch# - backwards-compatible bug fix
  • #minor# - adding functionality in a backwards-compatible manner
  • #major# - incompatible API change

CHANGELOG

@dafortin
Copy link
Member Author

I think it's a major since I change a few interface for the components. Let me know if you are not agreeing.

Also feel free to propose different names for the interface attributes.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 9462e67 on dafortin:master into ** on ciena-frost:master**.

@sglanzer-deprecated
Copy link
Contributor

We need to do everything possible avoid #major# releases - can you summarize the breaking changes?

@dafortin
Copy link
Member Author

I think we can probably do a #patch# since the interfaces changes are for components that I'm not expecting people to use on their own.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 9e6e12b on dafortin:master into ** on ciena-frost:master**.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 37c3b45 on dafortin:master into ** on ciena-frost:master**.

@@ -129,17 +129,6 @@ export default Component.extend({

// == Lifecycle Hooks =======================================================

didUpdateAttrs ({newAttrs}) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry - can you put a quick explanation on the removal of this?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't need the frost scroll with the vertical-collection. The vertical collection has the scrolling capability.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I reverted this 👍

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you push the changeset? It still appears as removed in the PR


{{#if pagination}}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it necessary to remove the "basic" {{#each}} loop in the pagination case? I'd prefer to not introduce {{#vertical-collection}} for those people using the pagination scenario in a minor release

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can remove it. I thought you asked me to replace the each by a vertical-collection.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I'd like to keep the existing pagination so that we don't risk breaking

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ping me when that's done and I'll merge

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure I reverted this :)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same here, still appears as removed in the PR

containerSelector=null
containerHeight=null
key='@identity'
resizeDebounce=64
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

64?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure what this is. I simply used the same vertical collection as below... I feel like we have a lot of properties that might not be necessary in the vertical collection.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that's fine - it's like 15 FPSish - just an odd default, but no problem

@sglanzer-deprecated
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good overall, just a few comments

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling e008455 on dafortin:master into ** on ciena-frost:master**.

@dafortin dafortin changed the title Split state and record for a list item, fixed #129 and used vertical collection for pagination use case Split state and record for a list item, fixed #129 Apr 26, 2017
@dafortin
Copy link
Member Author

@sglanzer pushed the changes

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling f403e20 on dafortin:master into ** on ciena-frost:master**.

@sglanzer-deprecated
Copy link
Contributor

sglanzer-deprecated commented Apr 26, 2017

Approved!

Approved with PullApprove

@sglanzer-deprecated sglanzer-deprecated merged commit 8a897bc into ciena-frost:master Apr 26, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants