Skip to content

Conversation

@odungern
Copy link
Contributor

@odungern odungern commented Jan 30, 2026

getHTML() for anEntity and aPackage implemented. With all probability the styles will have to be refined and probably the layout, as well.

This should be sufficient for a first implementation of the viewer plugin.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 30, 2026 10:18
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR implements HTML generation functionality for PIG entities and packages by adding getHTML() methods to the AnEntity and APackage classes. The implementation enables rendering entity metadata, properties, and package information as HTML strings for use in a viewer plugin.

Changes:

  • Implemented AnEntity.getHTML() to generate HTML representation of entities with their properties and metadata
  • Implemented APackage.getHTML() to return an array of HTML strings (package metadata + entity HTML)
  • Added comprehensive test suite for package HTML generation covering valid/invalid packages and multiple entities

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 16 comments.

File Description
src/utils/schemas/pig/ts/pig-metaclasses.ts Implements getHTML() methods for AnEntity (lines 914-957) and APackage (lines 1277-1310) to generate HTML representations
tests/unit/pig-package-gethtml.spec.ts Adds comprehensive test suite with 5 test cases covering package HTML generation, error handling, and entity filtering

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

odungern and others added 3 commits January 30, 2026 11:30
Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
@odungern
Copy link
Contributor Author

addressed all suggestions by Copilot merge review.

Copy link
Collaborator

@csaenz-psg csaenz-psg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a few changes I'd like to see. I will check that this branch does not break the current build and approve once these are all checked.

@csaenz-psg
Copy link
Collaborator

@odungern I suggest this branch be merged to branch #50 instead of dev to keep this more complicated change contained to a working branch.

@odungern
Copy link
Contributor Author

odungern commented Feb 3, 2026

Closed. Will be reinitiated as a merge with branch #50 as suggested by Chris.

@odungern odungern closed this Feb 3, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants