/
fluid-work IRC Logs-2013-02-20

fluid-work IRC Logs-2013-02-20

Feb 20, 2013

[09:59:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Hey michelled and Justin_o, do we have any documentation that outlines our approach to code reviews/pull requests in Fluid?

[09:59:54 CST(-0600)] <michelled> I don't think so colinclark

[10:00:06 CST(-0600)] <michelled> we have the laser eye checklist which helps with what to look for

[10:00:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ah yes

[10:00:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that's very helpful

[10:00:16 CST(-0600)] <michelled> and we have the quick and dirty a11y guide too

[10:00:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> If you guys had to summarize our process in a few bullet points, how would you do so?

[10:01:02 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Coding+and+Commit+Standards

[10:01:18 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> that's probably got all our info and links to info so far

[10:01:19 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ah, excellent!

[10:02:25 CST(-0600)] <michelled> Justin_o: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/docs/Quick-and-Dirty+Website+Accessibility+Tests+-+and+Fixes

[10:05:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> do we have any kind of "incubation process" any more, or is that all ancient history, Justin_o?

[10:16:33 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: yes and no.. i guess incubation is basically with different repos

[10:16:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ok

[10:17:36 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> so basically, at this point, we make some repositories "incubated" and others "core"?

[10:18:58 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: more or less, although i don't know if we've actually done much to show the distinction

[10:19:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> right

[10:19:52 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: i guess we really have only one core repo at the moment.. and something like video player may become one as well..

[10:21:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> right

[10:21:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ok

[11:02:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> michelled: Did you have any luck finding any references to localization of UIO on ISKME's Assembla tracker?

[11:11:36 CST(-0600)] <michelled> I can't find the assembla ticket, colinclark but here's the site: http://www.oercommons.org/arabic

[11:12:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it's beautiful in arabic

[11:12:28 CST(-0600)] <michelled> yeah

[11:41:23 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> michelled: i wish we had that when we went to Nigeria they might have liked that too

[11:52:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon and yzen: At this point, for Node.js support, it's clear to me that we want to remove any calls to jQuery from the core framework where the call has a Fluidic equivalent and thus isn't included in jQueryStandalone.js...

[11:52:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> And in general I have a sense that we often prefer the Fluidic alternative, where available

[11:52:39 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> colinclark - that is quite right

[11:52:42 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> with the obvious exception of $.extend as opposed to fluid.merge()

[11:53:16 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Shall I also sweep up a few stray calls to $.makeArray() in components that will never run in Node.js

[11:56:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> such as the Reorderer?

[12:08:09 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> May as well, I guess

[12:08:12 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> No point being inconsistent

[12:50:30 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Wow.... we have a visitor from AWS : P

[13:10:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: are you free at the moment for a micro code review?

[13:14:59 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Hi colinclark

[13:15:01 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> What can I do?

[13:17:58 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I added this somewhat bone-headed test to FluidJSTests

[13:18:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> since I noticed that we do try to test Infusion with the standalone jQuery f ile

[13:18:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but there weren't quite enough tests to show either the failure I experienced, or in fact the one that yzen fixed

[13:18:36 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> http://pastie.org/6253449

[13:18:44 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It's just rather, well, clunky

[13:19:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: any advice for improvements?

[13:20:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Sadly, fluid.emptySubcomponent doesn't, itself, have a grade, so I was only able to make the test for the absence of a particular default grade

[13:22:33 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Anti-religious though it is, I might suggest that we shouldn't lavish too much effort on testing a feature that we are planning shortly to remove or respecify....

[13:22:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Well, I would rather see a positive success for a change I make

[13:23:05 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yes, it would be nice

[13:23:11 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> But I'm not convinced it's a great use of your time (smile)

[13:23:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Oh, I see

[13:23:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> What would you have me spend my time on then?

[13:23:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> (tongue)

[13:23:38 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Thinking about the renderer, perhaps (smile)

[13:23:44 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ah, wouldn't that be nice

[13:23:58 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> except I seem to have on my to do list to fix this fucking bug

[13:24:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> which apparent was caused, in part, by an absence of historical test cases

[13:24:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> apparently

[13:26:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> anyway

[13:26:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> pull request will include the test case

[13:26:16 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> (tongue)

[13:26:22 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> you can do what you will with it

[13:26:24 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I appreciate it (smile)

[13:27:57 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Always better to have test cases rather than not

[13:39:45 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> colinclark - could you explain why the child component has an empty finalInit function?

[13:39:51 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Is this to exercise a particular code pathway?

[13:40:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm under the impression that a component must have an init function of some kind

[13:40:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> is that correct?

[13:40:17 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> No, it need have none

[13:40:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> hmm, fascinating

[13:40:45 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Also you can now use the "conventional names" for initFunctions which means you needn't write them out in the configuration

[13:40:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I hadn't found that worked when I tried it once

[13:41:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> what, specifically is the convention?

[13:41:09 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> For example, a function named "fluid.tests.initSubcomponentTest.parent.finalInit" would be picked up automatically

[13:41:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ah, a further dot

[13:41:24 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It consists of the component name, followed by the initFunction name omitting the suffix "Function"

[13:41:58 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> fluid-everyone: who would like to join the community meeting remotely today?

[13:42:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Justin_o: I will join as soon as my current meeting is done

[13:42:26 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: okay, ping me when you'd like me to add you

[13:43:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> not such a waste of time, after all (tongue)

[13:43:47 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I don't think I would ever gone as far as using the word "waste" (smile)

[13:45:46 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Please feel free to improve the operation of "emptySubcomponent" so that it actually produces a grade ...

[13:49:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> That sounds like a wonderful feature to add

[13:49:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but I think I'll take your advice there

[15:00:58 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It could be just as simple as manually adding "gradeNames" and "typeName" members

[15:01:06 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> This thing isn't a "real component" in any case

[15:02:08 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So there's no need for it to have any actual workflow

[23:29:51 CST(-0600)] <Zifi> hi

[23:29:55 CST(-0600)] <Zifi> I wanted to ask something

[23:32:05 CST(-0600)] <Zifi> can some one suggest me a good project to work on?

[23:37:32 CST(-0600)] <Zifi> Joseph Scheuhammer does anyone know him?