-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Sam Smallman <[email protected]>
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.
The text follows the E1.20 specification, so I'm hesitant to change this.
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.
The text follows the E1.20 specification, so I'm hesitant to change this.
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.
The text follows the E1.20 specification, so I'm hesitant to change this.
Egads, I can't figure out how to make an "unresolved conversation." Sorry about the noise. |
3e6d0c1
to
ac42033
Compare
I think you're talking about a line comment: |
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.
Some improvements and potential solutions
"name": "current_personality", | ||
"name": "personality", |
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.
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.
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.
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", |
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 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.
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 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
Closes #23
Signed-off-by: Sam Smallman [email protected]