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
feat: archived conversation list [WPB-4429] #2295
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2295 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 40.72% 41.36% +0.64%
- Complexity 1034 1046 +12
=============================================
Files 323 324 +1
Lines 11748 11731 -17
Branches 1564 1554 -10
=============================================
+ Hits 4784 4853 +69
+ Misses 6510 6410 -100
- Partials 454 468 +14
... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
APKs built during tests are available here. Scroll down to Artifacts! |
Build 1106 succeeded. The build produced the following APK's: |
Build 1124 failed. |
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ class WireApplication : Application(), Configuration.Provider { | |||
.detectDiskReads() | |||
.detectDiskWrites() | |||
.penaltyLog() | |||
.penaltyDeath() | |||
// .penaltyDeath() |
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.
shouldn't be reverted?
*/ | ||
package com.wire.android.ui.home.conversationslist.model | ||
|
||
data class SearchQuery(val text: String, val fromArchive: Boolean) |
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 don't like this boolean
. For now it's enough, but later the app could also have "folders" and "contacts" later. So IMO enum class
would be preferable 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.
I think that Boris has a point. Also implementation with let's say sourceType
sealed type shouldn't be much more difficult as now we only have Archive and "normal" conversations.
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 added comment about it but I can implement it right now 😄
is SearchQueryUpdate.UpdateConversationsSource -> currentSearchQuery.copy( | ||
text = "", | ||
fromArchive = update.fromArchive | ||
) |
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.
is SearchQueryUpdate.UpdateConversationsSource -> {
if (currentSearchQuery.fromArchive != update.fromArchive)
currentSearchQuery.copy(
text = "",
fromArchive = update.fromArchive
)
else currentSearchQuery
}
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.
Looking good in general. Just a small comment regarding code simplification on the Search query mechanism. Feel free to ignore if the final implementation turns to be much more complex and would compromise the release of the feature.
Build 1137 failed. |
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.
Much better now 🦾 Thanks for changes!
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.
great job, thanks :)
Build 1139 failed. |
APKs built during tests are available here. Scroll down to Artifacts! |
Build 1144 succeeded. The build produced the following APK's: |
PR Submission Checklist for internal contributors
The PR Title
SQPIT-764
The PR Description
What's new in this PR?
search.mp4
list.mp4