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

Provide consistent field names across parameters #24

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sammysmallman
Copy link

Closes #23
Signed-off-by: Sam Smallman srsmallman@mac.com

Signed-off-by: Sam Smallman <srsmallman@mac.com>
Copy link
Owner

@ssilverman ssilverman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The text follows the E1.20 specification, so I'm hesitant to change this.

Copy link
Owner

@ssilverman ssilverman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The text follows the E1.20 specification, so I'm hesitant to change this.

Copy link
Owner

@ssilverman ssilverman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The text follows the E1.20 specification, so I'm hesitant to change this.

@ssilverman
Copy link
Owner

Egads, I can't figure out how to make an "unresolved conversation." Sorry about the noise.

@ssilverman ssilverman force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 3e6d0c1 to ac42033 Compare August 23, 2022 15:18
@peternewman
Copy link
Contributor

Egads, I can't figure out how to make an "unresolved conversation." Sorry about the noise.

I think you're talking about a line comment:
https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/commenting-on-a-pull-request#adding-line-comments-to-a-pull-request

Copy link
Contributor

@peternewman peternewman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some improvements and potential solutions

"name": "current_personality",
"name": "personality",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we want a field name and an optional field label maybe?

OLA currently uses one field for both (with some automagic conversion to the other).

I can certainly see the argument for flagging the piece of information the same if it's present in multiple PIDs. But if this was called personality and we also had personality count in this PID it's probably not as user friendly, especially given it's actually the personality number not a name or anything.

Copy link
Author

@sammysmallman sammysmallman Sep 1, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Technically speaking they are not names or labels. They are unique keys that can be used for localisation and hopefully to distinguish matching fields across parameters. The value of this key is shown only to the user as a last resort, you would first check whether you have a localised string using the value of this key, if not you would check whether there is a "displayName" key in the schema and present that, before using the "name" keys value and then arguably I would probably just use the PID as it would look better...

"name": "dmx_start_address",
"name": "dmx_address",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No real excuse here though, apart from none of us spotted and flagged it in the recent review. Although I'd argue the change is being made the wrong way round, DMX start address is more descriptive and unambiguous to me.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree I think it should be dmx_start_address matching the name of the pid 240. Same goes for the fields name within that parameters schema. I also think wherever personality is used it should be dmx_personality matching that parameters name

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.

Consistent Field Names
3 participants