-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
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
Update the extension to include form confirguration #555
Open
dubdabasoduba
wants to merge
1
commit into
master
Choose a base branch
from
feature/issue-554
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Why not add this to
JsonFormBaseActivity
orJsonFormActivity
to support configurability of all kinds of forms and not just wizard forms?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.
This extends the
JsonFormActivity
andJsonWizardFormActivity
extendsJsonFormActivity
activity too.FormConfigurationJsonFormActivity
can't extendJsonFormBaseActivity
without a lot of refactor as it depends on a couple of functions onJsonFormActivity
.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.
Cool, but doesn't that still mean that form configurability with not be supported for
JsonFormActivity
?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.
Yes, this upgrade doc explains why everyone should now extend
FormConfigurationJsonFormActivity
instead ofJsonFormActivity
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.
Ok, I guess it's a bit asymmetric that we have
JsonWizardFormActivity
directly inheriting fromFormConfigurationJsonFormActivity
rather than creating a separateFormConfigurationJsonWizardFormActivity
and asking people using wizard forms to migrate to that as well.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.
It does make sense that
FormConfigurationJsonFormActivity
is a child ofJsonFormActivity
i.e. semantically it's a version ofJsonFormActivity
.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.
On the other hand, it feels like all
JsonFormActivity
s should have the configurable feature available to them but not enabled by default. And so it would make more sense if it was added in the parent class and inherited by the child classes. Not sure if this indicates a use case for composition over inheritance 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.
Anyway, I don't see any functional issues with the approach. But I think it's worth pointing out the asymmetry. And noting that now we consider
JsonWizardFormActivity
to be a type ofFormConfigurationJsonFormActivity
and not directly a type ofJsonFormActivity
. Meaning that you will always have the configurability feature available (is it mandatory?) for wizards.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.
Are the changes tested for compatibility?