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
gui: Remove probing for remote GUI address (ref #7017) #7136
Conversation
This removes the probing for the remote side, instead making it so we simply construct the address based on the currently connected address, if any, and let the user sort out whether it works or not.
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.
Looks good overall, just some wording suggestions.
gui/default/index.html
Outdated
<a ng-if="idToRemoteGUI[deviceCfg.deviceID]" href="{{idToRemoteGUI[deviceCfg.deviceID].replace('%', '%25')}}">{{idToRemoteGUI[deviceCfg.deviceID]}}</a> | ||
<span ng-if="!idToRemoteGUI[deviceCfg.deviceID]">Unreachable</span> | ||
<a ng-if="hasDeviceGUIAddr(deviceCfg)" href="{{deviceGUIAddr(deviceCfg).replace('%', '%25')}}">{{deviceGUIAddr(deviceCfg)}}</a> | ||
<span ng-if="!hasDeviceGUIAddr(deviceCfg)">Unreachable</span> |
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.
If we don't do any probing, I don't think that "Unreachable" is a sensible information. If you mean to indicate there is no suitable connection to construct an address from, maybe we should change the wording. Something like "No connection"?
And I thought the discussion turned out in favour of the "remote GUI" naming, also for variables / functions?
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.
Perhaps "Unknown"?
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.
Actually we do know. Either there is no connection, or it's known not to be related to the host itself, but a relay server. So "No connection" is still my favorite, although for the second case "No direct connection" would be more accurate.
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.
Well, there is a remote device and it has a GUI, we just don't know how to connect to it. We also use it for other things like unknown folder status so it's already there and translated. "No [direct] connection" would be more like the underlying reason we don't know the GUI address.
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.
But the heading "Remote GUI" is not about an address. The fact is that we do not know how to (hopefully) reach it, which is somewhere between "Unreachable" and "Unknown". Maybe get more explicit and say "Address unknown"?
My last review comment was not addressed yet. Please reconsider the wording because an "Unknown" remote GUI is not a sensible information. |
Well, I at least disagree, I think it's fine and quite unambiguous. |
This removes the probing for the remote side, instead making it so we
simply construct the address based on the currently connected address,
if any, and let the user sort out whether it works or not.