Provide consistent field names across parameters#24
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Sam Smallman <srsmallman@mac.com>
ssilverman
left a comment
ssilverman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The text follows the E1.20 specification, so I'm hesitant to change this.
ssilverman
left a comment
ssilverman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The text follows the E1.20 specification, so I'm hesitant to change this.
ssilverman
left a comment
ssilverman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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. |
ssilverman
force-pushed
the
master
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3e6d0c1 to
ac42033
Compare
I think you're talking about a line comment: |
peternewman
left a comment
peternewman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some improvements and potential solutions
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "name": "current_personality", | ||
| "name": "personality", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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": "personality_count", "type": "uint8" }, | ||
| { | ||
| "name": "dmx_start_address", | ||
| "name": "dmx_address", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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
3 participants
Closes #23
Signed-off-by: Sam Smallman srsmallman@mac.com