Re: [cdt-dev] CMainTab ui

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: laskava@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:laskava@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alena
> Laskavaia
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:59 AM
> To: Marc Khouzam
> Cc: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CMainTab ui
> 
> So we ok reversing fields? And adding optional in label?

+1
If someone is against it, please let us know.

> Me changing this in abstract main class will affect all product using it. And it
> hard to do a good job there because all internal details of this page is API.
> There are few options
> - I don't do anything in CDT and just change our product


If we feel it is a good improvement, it would be good to have it in CDT

> - I change current AbstarctMain tab with some ugly hacks to not break API

It is hard to vote for this when using the words "ugly hacks" :)

> - I create another AbstractMain2 and deprecated existing one but leave old
> one as is

The ordering of fields is in CMainTab I believe.  Can't the change be done there
without changing the API?  Or are the API changes needed for the below suggestion?

> Regarding projectless, ignore my statement that it does not work in cdt, I just
> testing something something else. Default launch config allows it, but it also
> disables ALL validation
> of project and path which I think is really not good. Because if there is
> mistake there you will get an ugly error in "final launch sequence", If you do a
> new tab, I can add
> more granular validation rules, i.e.
> - check that project is empty OR exists and open
> - check that binary exists (in workspace or outside)

+1
That would be nice improvement.  Thanks!

> In general I think we need more due diligence when committees changing
> UI, It is hard to understand what ui looks like by doing reviews. If somebody
> would change common UI
> I would suggest to post mockups/screenshots on this list so people can
> reviews prior to getting into stage where is too late to change (like right now)

+1.  I think committers should do their best to point out UI changes to the list.
Shall we try to make this part of our 'process'?


> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Marc Khouzam
> <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It also always bothered me to have the Binary above the project.  I believe
> that in bug 285904 [1], when adding the control to build-before-launch, the
> idea was to keep the project field and the build before launch fields next to
> each other, so the project field was moved down.  This was in CDI at the
> time.
> 
> DSF-GDB at that time had the project field at the top because it seemed
> more user-friendly.  In bug 285907 [2], we united the CDI and DSF launches
> somewhat and for the sake of consistency, we move the project box lower.
> 
> I still think the other way around is nicer though.
> If we can agree on it, I suggest we move the project box at the top.
> Also, to address Elena’s point about project-less debugging, how about we
> put some text above the project box saying “it can be left empty” or maybe
> simply putting “(optional)” would be nice.
> 
> ➢  but this workflow is not even supported in default cdt ui
> 
> I’m not sure what you mean by the above?  Project-less debugging should be
> supported in most cases in DSF (not CDI though).
> 
> 
> [1] http://eclip.se/285904
> [2] http://eclip.se/285907
> 
> 
> 
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Alena Laskavaia
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:16 AM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CMainTab ui
> 
> I was brought up few times. I am not sure what is reasoning for the original
> design. Technically binary can be selected without a project outside of
> workspace, but this workflow is not even supported in default cdt ui
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Rafael Peria de Sene
> <rpsene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Regarding usability. When creating a new launcher, we need first select the
> project and then select the binary, which does not follow the UI organization.
> What if we change the order of the C/C++ Application  and Project fields ?
> 
> On 10/22/2014 12:28 PM, Alena Laskavaia wrote:
> CAbstractMainTab because all code is there
> 
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Mikhail Khodjaiants
> <mikhailkhod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Are you planning to modify CAbstractMainTab or a particular CMainTab (CDI
> or DSF)?
> 
> 
> On 22/10/2014 9:57 AM, Alena Laskavaia wrote:
> I would like to get rid of extra checkbox in CMainTab ui for build config
> selector
> called "Select configuration using 'C/C++ Application'" and move it to Combo
> instead
> This is how it looks now
> …
> What I am proposing is this:
> 
> 
> So "Auto" in this case is same choice as previous checkbox but it uses less
> space
> and less confusing
> It also by discretion of the launch config delegate to interpret this value and
> pick
> configuration based on some other logic (rather then application path only)
> Thoughts?
> (Note: this button is API unfortunately, so I am planning to keep it but make
> invisible,
> programmatic logic of enabling/disabling it will be supported)
> ​
> ​
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>