Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
certainly. I'm super-glad you're on board, and really appreciate your (and others') work on it
PG Lewis
@pglewis
one of the things about code approaches that aid the IDE, is those same patterns also aid new coders
string constants as array keys give you no insights as to what other keys may be available
but I can look at a group of getters and setters for a class and get a lay of the land for how the interface is supposed to work
things that rely on dynamic bits mean I have to understand run-time context to understand that line
explicit method calls I can see what's happening at a glance and know whether or not it pertains to what I'm looking for / doing
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
yah, for sure
PG Lewis
@pglewis
I'm still not sold 100% on the exact inheritance we're doing
where field group is extended by the metabox and field objects
in one sense it's logical: both of those can be a collection of fields
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
can you push your changes so I can see how it's going?
PG Lewis
@pglewis
and it's what accelerated us toward being able to do nesting with a proof of concept
everything is pretty much on our fork right now
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
on the trunk branch?
PG Lewis
@pglewis
not sure I even have any local uncommited changes yet
no, named after nested fields
nested-fields-trunk
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
ah, there it s
what do you have in mind, if NOT doing it this way?
PG Lewis
@pglewis
there's still a lot of duct tape just to get things to pass tests and things are in mid-refactor
all fields appear to be working except any group fields at the moment
still a handful of things to track down there
I'm not sure I have a Plan B at the moment...
at the point I had achieved at least display of nested fields and things were pretty much back-compat, I figured this is pitch-able as solution
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
absolutely
PG Lewis
@pglewis
though I think another refactor pass on the fields object will simplify the remaining sticky bits
my main concern was "can this even be done and be remotely back compat"
I was amazed that it just might be
but user mbs, options page mb, mb on pages all seem to save an load, images... multi images
just no groups yet until I complete the unborking there
and fields data structure is becoming the major bottle neck to that
CMB2 and the fields group objects are slowly getting hammered into better shape
so if this moves forward, the plan would be: finish up passing tests, test against metabox example code, test saving from group and nested group fields
and then: break tests again by refactoring fields
get it stable in a wave of refactoring, start the next
if it doesn't move forward, I need to learn my alternative approach
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
'just no groups yet until I complete the unborking there'
isn't that what this is about?
nested groups basically?
PG Lewis
@pglewis
I know a lot more about the structure now than when I went in
all group fields are currently broken for at least either saving or loading
since the structure under the hood changed and I haven't tracked down the last bits of broken there
like 3 tests failing, which are likely the culprits
but it's getting into the field objects now... field options staying in synch
less and less things to fix in CMB2 and the Field Groups class
and more and more things I'm tracing around the rabbit hole in fields
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
gotcha
PG Lewis
@pglewis
rendering is close to right, some options not getting set to put the button text on the add/remove buttons
so the borked part of groups is either saving, loading, or both
haven't even checked the meta table 'cause i figured I'd get it to pass tests first then see where it lands