[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-panel-devel
Subject: D12498: Fully remove `Application Name` from Details panel
From: Nathaniel Graham <noreply () phabricator ! kde ! org>
Date: 2018-09-28 21:27:12
Message-ID: 8ed0d01563281fd51aa83a9de56326f8 () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (text/plain)]
ngraham added a comment.
In D12498#333627 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498#333627>, @sharvey wrote:
> I believe what you're perceiving in the XML file is in fact the result of a lot \
of changes made to the layout. Unneeded columns, rows, and spacers were deleted, \
causing "gaps" in the old XML file. In places, I added options like column spans and \
justifications. The XML file changed a lot.
Right, and wouldn't those changes be unrelated to this patch? If it's just a simple \
string removal, why do we need so many layout changes? The layout changes may be \
useful (I believe they probably are) but shouldn't they be done in a separate patch? \
> In my opinion - which you can take or leave - I don't believe these XML files \
were intended to be human-read. The UI they generate is where the judgement and \
checking should come from, not the convoluted XML generated by QtCreator. I've seen \
diffs much larger than this one.
That's their inherent problem, and I'm guessing one of the reasons why the Qt folks \
developed QML. It's a problem that has plagued machine-generated code files since \
forever.
The reason why using Qt Creator to modify these files after the fact is a problem \
is because makes the, well, code review part of code review nearly impossible. The \
diff is just noise because so much has changed. It becomes very challenging to \
actually review because it's not apparent what's intentional, what might have snuck \
in by accident, or what's simply Qt Creator moving things around with no change in \
functionality. Yes, we can evaluate the UI that it produces to make sure that it's \
good. But UI review and code review are different for a good reason. A UI that looks \
and feels okay when you test it can still have hidden problems that are only revealed \
by reading the code.
All changes to `.ui` files that I've ever made have been by hand, and I've seen \
other KDE contributors do the same. Yes, this does indeed suck. It's why I'm \
recommending either:
- Redoing the changes to the `.ui` file by hand to keep the diff manageable and \
reviewable
- First in another patch porting the `.ui` file to QML so that changes made by hand \
aren't torture
> Truthfully, I'm not clear on what you expect me to do. The UI works fine. \
Monkeying with the XML to make it "pretty" seems a bit pointless.
Take one of the above two options, or hand it over to @bruns, I guess. It's all \
good though. :)
REPOSITORY
R121 Policykit (Polkit) KDE Agent
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498
To: sharvey, bruns, ngraham, davidedmundson
Cc: davidedmundson, bruns, ngraham, plasma-devel, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, \
lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<table><tr><td style="">ngraham added a comment.
</td><a style="text-decoration: none; padding: 4px 8px; margin: 0 8px 8px; float: \
right; color: #464C5C; font-weight: bold; border-radius: 3px; background-color: \
#F7F7F9; background-image: linear-gradient(to bottom,#fff,#f1f0f1); display: \
inline-block; border: 1px solid rgba(71,87,120,.2);" \
href="https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498">View Revision</a></tr></table><br \
/><div><div><blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #8C98B8; color: #6B748C;
font-style: italic;
margin: 4px 0 12px 0;
padding: 8px 12px;
background-color: #F8F9FC;">
<div style="font-style: normal;
padding-bottom: 4px;">In <a \
href="https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498#333627" style="background-color: #e7e7e7; \
border-color: #e7e7e7; border-radius: 3px;
padding: 0 4px;
font-weight: bold;
color: black;text-decoration: none;">D12498#333627</a>, <a \
href="https://phabricator.kde.org/p/sharvey/" style=" border-color: #f1f7ff;
color: #19558d;
background-color: #f1f7ff;
border: 1px solid transparent;
border-radius: 3px;
font-weight: bold;
padding: 0 4px;">@sharvey</a> wrote:</div>
<div style="margin: 0;
padding: 0;
border: 0;
color: rgb(107, 116, 140);"><p>I believe what you're perceiving in the \
XML file is in fact the result of a lot of changes made to the layout. Unneeded \
columns, rows, and spacers were deleted, causing "gaps" in the old XML \
file. In places, I added options like column spans and justifications. The XML file \
changed a lot.</p></div> </blockquote>
<p>Right, and wouldn't those changes be unrelated to this patch? If it's \
just a simple string removal, why do we need so many layout changes? The layout \
changes may be useful (I believe they probably are) but shouldn't they be done \
in a separate patch?</p>
<blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #a7b5bf; color: #464c5c; font-style: \
italic; margin: 4px 0 12px 0; padding: 4px 12px; background-color: #f8f9fc;"><p>In my \
opinion - which you can take or leave - I don't believe these XML files were \
intended to be human-read. The UI they generate is where the judgement and checking \
should come from, not the convoluted XML generated by QtCreator. I've seen diffs \
much larger than this one.</p></blockquote>
<p>That's their inherent problem, and I'm guessing one of the reasons why \
the Qt folks developed QML. It's a problem that has plagued machine-generated \
code files since forever.</p>
<p>The reason why using Qt Creator to modify these files after the fact is a problem \
is because makes the, well, code review part of code review nearly impossible. The \
diff is just noise because so much has changed. It becomes very challenging to \
actually review because it's not apparent what's intentional, what might \
have snuck in by accident, or what's simply Qt Creator moving things around with \
no change in functionality. Yes, we can evaluate the UI that it produces to make sure \
that it's good. But UI review and code review are different for a good reason. A \
UI that looks and feels okay when you test it can still have hidden problems that are \
only revealed by reading the code.</p>
<p>All changes to <tt style="background: #ebebeb; font-size: 13px;">.ui</tt> files \
that I've ever made have been by hand, and I've seen other KDE contributors \
do the same. Yes, this does indeed suck. It's why I'm recommending \
either:</p>
<ul class="remarkup-list">
<li class="remarkup-list-item">Redoing the changes to the <tt style="background: \
#ebebeb; font-size: 13px;">.ui</tt> file by hand to keep the diff manageable and \
reviewable</li> <li class="remarkup-list-item">First in another patch porting the <tt \
style="background: #ebebeb; font-size: 13px;">.ui</tt> file to QML so that changes \
made by hand aren't torture</li> </ul>
<blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #a7b5bf; color: #464c5c; font-style: \
italic; margin: 4px 0 12px 0; padding: 4px 12px; background-color: \
#f8f9fc;"><p>Truthfully, I'm not clear on what you expect me to do. The UI works \
fine. Monkeying with the XML to make it "pretty" seems a bit \
pointless.</p></blockquote>
<p>Take one of the above two options, or hand it over to <a \
href="https://phabricator.kde.org/p/bruns/" style=" border-color: #f1f7ff;
color: #19558d;
background-color: #f1f7ff;
border: 1px solid transparent;
border-radius: 3px;
font-weight: bold;
padding: 0 4px;">@bruns</a>, I guess. It's all good though. \
:)</p></div></div><br /><div><strong>REPOSITORY</strong><div><div>R121 Policykit \
(Polkit) KDE Agent</div></div></div><br /><div><strong>REVISION \
DETAIL</strong><div><a \
href="https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498">https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498</a></div></div><br \
/><div><strong>To: </strong>sharvey, bruns, ngraham, davidedmundson<br /><strong>Cc: \
</strong>davidedmundson, bruns, ngraham, plasma-devel, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, \
lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart<br /></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic