Johan, Just one point ... the ui for MetacelloBrowser is not expected to be complete at this point ... I think there are still a number of commands that need to be added before we can start considering what the final ui will look like ... once we have a feel for the set of commands that should be included and the type of work flow we are supporting (neither of which has been decided upon) we will be able to fine tune the ui and there is a lot of work that needs to be done ... You're comments about the fact that you had difficulty figuring out how to call your #loadDefault method are where we need to be focussing our efforts ... this is a missing piece of functionality that needs to be addressed. Spiffing up a ui _before_ you've decided on the final set of commands to be supported is the same type of mistake you make when making a premature optimization of an algorithm ... For me the biggest problem that I struggle with is the number of times that I must break out of the MetacelloBrowser to do work with Monticello Browser windows...I have included a number of commands in the MetacelloBrowser that allow you to perform many of the MonticelloBrowser functions and I see the need to add more ... So I begin thinking that maybe these functions should be incorporated into the MetacelloBrowser ... allow the direct viewing of the repository/history .... I'm also not happy with having to go the browser to see certain bits of information from the Metacello spec (like the description) .... I think we need to incorporate that as well ... We need major improvement in the ui for creating a configuration ... major work needs to be done there ... ... and more ... Dale On Apr 23, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Johan Fabry wrote:
My 2 cents on this topic: user interface consistency cannot be underestimated. I called these 'leds' unit-test icons because thats what they are (in my mind and I guess also for a lot of other people). So using them for anything else is not a good idea at all. Alex' proposal seems (to me) a much better idea.
On 23 Apr 2011, at 13:05, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
I agree with you. The browser is not yet a replacement for manual editing. The validation mechanism has to be present.
Maybe the led can be traded with a red bold font for the project name. The meaning of the red font is clear and unambiguous. The led can then instead be used for the test. How does that sound?
I will work on the test soon. This week end maybe.
Alexandre
Le 23 avr. 2011 à 11:43, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> a écrit :
Alexandre,
I think the 'run tests' command is great idea ...
Validation wil be important as long as folks edit configs by hand, so validation needs to be part of the tool set (whether automatic or manual) ...
Just because people don't do it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be doing it ... it is very easy to introduce an error that won't show up until you try to use the configuration, so validation is important...
I would prefer to see it automatic which then begs the question of how to notify the user that there is a validation issue and which configuration/version has the issue ... presumably we have a set of feedback options that we can use ...
Dale
-- Johan Fabry jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile