lib: Introduce the Dialog Implementation Convenience Kit #22700
Conversation
mvollmer
added
the
no-test
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
mvollmer
force-pushed
the
dick
branch
2 times, most recently
from
bdda053 to
2dd5f8c
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
mvollmer
force-pushed
the
dick
branch
4 times, most recently
from
b174978 to
39357ad
Compare
mvollmer
removed
the
no-test
mvollmer
force-pushed
the
dick
branch
3 times, most recently
from
454c423 to
18df4c6
Compare
mvollmer
requested review from
KKoukiou,
Venefilyn,
allisonkarlitskaya,
jelly,
martinpitt and
tomasmatus
mvollmer
force-pushed
the
dick
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0d4455c to
bb59c19
Compare
| - value.remove(index) | ||
|
|
||
| If the current value is an array, remove the element at "index". | ||
| It is important to use this function instead of just "value.set()" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it a "bug" or performance loss to use set over all of the add, remove, etc?
I feel like using set and pass it a modified version of array is more of a "javascript" approach similarly how you use setState and give it a new array instead of in-place editing which is not right.
Or maybe not a JS approach but immediately obvious way how to handle this :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, I should have read the block bellow 👍🏻
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it a "bug" or performance loss to use set over all of the add, remove, etc?
Yeah, it's not a bug, but very good practice to avoid spurious re-validation.
| dlg.value("list").forEach(v => { | ||
| v.validate(vv => { | ||
| if (vv == ".") | ||
| return "No dots"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This added line is not executed by any test. Details
| await cockpit.spawn(["ls", "--no-such-option"], { err: "message" }); | ||
| } else if (values.error == "random") { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These 2 added lines are not executed by any test. Details
| /> | ||
| { | ||
| // Calling "map" on a non-array should just do nothing. | ||
| dlg.value("text").map((v, i) => <span key={i}>{v.get()}</span>) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This added line is not executed by any test. Details
3 participants
This is already used in