On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 04:21:28PM -0300, Tomaz Canabrava wrote: >> > >> > indeed the problem is that the information is kept (at least in part) >> > in several data structures (model (i.e. UI), struct dive, dive plan >> > and in the deco part as well in a list of depth at which something >> > happens). We should come up at least with a good decision which is the >> > primary place that gets copied to the others. I have to admit I >> > haven’t understood this model thing well enough to have an informed >> > opinion if that is a good primary place as you seem to suggest. > > The model is for the UI, nothing else. I refuse to use the model for > anything else. The problem with the data structures on the C side of the > world is that we have too many different dive structures floating around, > all involved in planning the dive. And of course the diveplan. > >> The code right now is a bit of mess. What we *should* do: >> >> - the model shouldn't change any datastructure, it should call a c - >> function passing the data structure and the changed values. >> - the view shouldn't change any datastructures, it should call a c - >> function passing the data structure and the changed values. > > I'm not even sure that I can parse this. Yes, the UI shouldn't hold any > code that is the actual planner code - but I think it makes sense to have > the logic behind the interaction in the UI code. > >> right now, the *logic* of the planner is on planner.c / >> diveplannerpointsmodel.cpp, should be moved to planner.c > > So you are saying "no logic of planning" in the cpp file. That is the case > today. But there is still too much of the "setting up the data" magic > happening in the UI part - and that is coming back to bite us. > >> the planner is an awesome place to test the unittests, I will start there. ;p > > It is. But right now there are serious design flaws - I see little point > in testing what we have. I want to get to a point where the architecture > and design of the planner is in a sane state and THEN start writing tests > for the components.
True. I'm online on irc, since we both + atdtode are the ones doing the planner mainly, wanna do a quick meeting there about that? > /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
