-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 174
Conditional tab rendering in Playground #808
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0bfad59
Conditional tab rendering for Playground
alcen ad8c3d9
Fix For Crashing in Source §1 & §2
lumos309 88d57ae
Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/source-academy/cadet-fron…
alcen 5f2dc6e
Merge branch 'master' into conditional-tabs
alcen 928acd9
Merge branch 'master' into conditional-tabs
alcen 9e7a7f0
Merge branch 'master' into conditional-tabs
geshuming 26ba009
Merge branch 'master' into conditional-tabs
martin-henz f5d4af6
Merge branch 'master' into conditional-tabs
alcen 1561eec
Merge branch 'master' into conditional-tabs
alcen 85c41c8
Merge branch 'master' into conditional-tabs
martin-henz b806b10
Merge branch 'master' into conditional-tabs
martin-henz 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Can we make this more logical, this part has always been making my brain explode.
Honestly though, I don't even think the above code segment makes any sense. Please comment on what this code segment is even intended to do.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Okay,
debuggerOnis used as a flag for slang.So the correct code should look like
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 was done by the INSPECT team, so I'm not certain about how it works either. Having said that, this:
doesn't seem to be the same boolean expression as the original code.
!(actionType === actionTypes.EVAL_EDITOR || actionType === actionTypes.DEBUG_RESUME) && context.chapter > 2will callinspectorUpdate(undefined)in the original code, but not in the suggested amendment.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.
My mistake. The clause should be
just like the original code
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.
No, this won't work because it can trigger
inspectedUpdate(undefined)even when!(context.chapter > 2), and that crashes the entire webpage. That's what the change was originally for.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, can we clean this up then. The logic here is very confusing. Can we add comments to clarify?