On 28/10/14 16:40, Anna Petrášová wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Moritz Lennert <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 25/10/14 02:58, Anna Petrášová wrote: Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Anna Petrášová <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>__> wrote: Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Vaclav Petras <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Moritz Lennert <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:mlennert@club.__worldonline.be <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: On 14/10/14 10:38, Paulo van Breugel wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Moritz Lennert <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:mlennert@club.__worldonline.be <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:mlennert@club. <mailto:mlennert@club.>__worldo__nline.be <http://worldonline.be> <mailto:mlennert@club.__worldonline.be <mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote: On 14/10/14 09:14, Paulo van Breugel wrote: Putting the 'ignore' option in separate tab with patterns is fine I think. Also, for g.remove to have the 'type' and 'name' together in one tab is also a good idea imho. I am not sure I understand the last question; you mean to add the possibility to make an option required but still have the option to put it in another section? I think that would be a good idea, not only in this case, but more in general, it would make it easier to create an consistent interface for modules that require more than a few inputs. It might be a good idea to flag options as required, e.g., by adding '(required)' after the option name? I'm not sure I agree with this as this would leave the door open for required flags to be disseminated across several sections. I like the fact that the use immediately sees what is required to run the module. I guess it is a matter of preference. There are some grey area or cases where this separate 'required' tab does not really work i.m.h.o. The '-f' flag in g.remove is one example. You can run the module without (so it shouldn't go in the 'required' tab), but you can't do what the module is basically meant to do without it, which is removing layers (so in that sense it should be a required choice). Perhaps a better example is r.random. One of the required options is the output layer. That can be a raster layer, a vector layer or both. Because of this construct, the required output name cannot be marked as required. Solution is to use a separate tab 'optional' where the user can provide the output name of the vector, raster or both layers. So the user has to fill in required information in a 'required tab' and an 'optional' tab. I don't think it is really problematic as failing to give the output name results in a clear error message, but it isn't exactly consistent. The new options to declare parameters as mutually exclusive or as "at least one is requried of the group" might be a solution to that, but no idea how to implement this in the GUI. Put this to GUI is certainly needed but challenging and I it will not be included in 7.0. Perhaps we should put this to the manual in some way. But modules are not using it anyway. Anyway, these "at least one required" are causing Required section to be less and less used, so that's another reason why it makes sense to leave it out sometimes. I think it makes thanks to 'override' the required property with the guisection. If we do it for a module, we should make sure there is no Required tab at all. I think having required parameters in custom tabs and eliminate Required tab is totally fine. Having Required tab and at the same time have required parameters in other sections would not work well. Also we could mark the required options in the gui somehow, for example add a red star? In the code I see attempts to render the labels as bold, it is not used eventually, but I don't think bold is the best way anyway. I attached screenshots with using the red star for required options (and in this case I was also testing when the guisection is preferred to required). In my opinion, it gives you good idea what is required or not. There are some problems coming from the wxPython limitations, for example the one which you see on the second screenshot: when the label is part of the border, I can't set the asterisk red, the color can be changed only for the entire label. But for majority options, it works. Regarding the required vs. guisection, I really think we should try to organize the options logically, not based on required/optional. Some distinction of the required options is then needed and the red asterisk seems to be a good solution. But we can discuss some other options too, of course. If you really want to go down that path (it would get a 0 from me), then please remove the required tab completely. It will be very confusing to have a required section, but not with all required parameters in it. I personally like the way the required tab focuses attention on the most important parameters, even though I do understand that there are ambiguities that this system creates. I'm not sure, though, that getting rid of the required tab is the solution. But if you go in that direction it should be all the way. Well, there are already modules which already don't have required tab (r.colors, many t.* modules). Also a lot of modules have required tab but it is more confusing than helpful. Do you require to remove Required tab from all the modules? Even from modules where it still makes sense? Or you are talking about the case when the option is required but the guisection is specified, so it would get into a different tab? For the first option, we would have to go through all modules (several hundreds) and come up with some substitute, that's not feasible.
No, I agree with what Vaclav said: for those modules where required options are all in the required section, this should stay. However, if in a module you put required parameters in other sections, then there should be no more required section for that module.
Moritz _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
