Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Invert checkboxes #147

Open
Sav22999 opened this issue Oct 10, 2020 · 10 comments
Open

Invert checkboxes #147

Sav22999 opened this issue Oct 10, 2020 · 10 comments

Comments

@Sav22999
Copy link
Collaborator

Instead of select checkboxes you want to disable it would be better select those you want to enable

@Mte90
Copy link
Owner

Mte90 commented Oct 12, 2020

It is now in this way because when we add a new service with a release the new service is automatically shown.
In this way the users can see if there are new services without check an update pages and disable it.
If we move further this we need to inform the user of that.

@Sav22999
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes, but it's not logically correct. When you insert a new service, just insert is as "checked" instead of "unchecked"

@Mte90
Copy link
Owner

Mte90 commented Oct 12, 2020

How you can detect that is a new service so with the update become checked automatically?
We don't have any way to execute a code on upgrade, and we save just the value as they are now in the db.

@Ryuno-Ki
Copy link
Collaborator

How you can detect that is a new service so with the update become checked automatically?

By checking its presence in the storage. If it's not there, it wasn't present on the last save. Thus, it is likely a new service.
This change could be considered a breaking change. Perhaps worth for reserving after the next major release?

@Sav22999
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Mte90 Or just you set "checked" as default. It's the same of the unchecked logic

@Ryuno-Ki
Copy link
Collaborator

It's breaking insofar, as the logic (the meaning of checked) is flipped. Thus, it has to be communicated somehow to users upgrading to the new version.

@Mte90
Copy link
Owner

Mte90 commented Oct 12, 2020

It's breaking insofar, as the logic (the meaning of checked) is flipped. Thus, it has to be communicated somehow to users upgrading to the new version.

This is the big problem as the extension is built to be simple so to do that we need to implement a lot of stuff.

To implement this we need to implement a backport solution that doesn't break anything.

@Mte90
Copy link
Owner

Mte90 commented Oct 5, 2022

I don't know if it is the case to close that ticket as after years I didn't got any support request about it.

@Sav22999
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sav22999 commented Oct 5, 2022

Do you pay to have opened issues? 🤔
Just leave open, imho, and if a user want yo contribute, then he/she/them will be it

@Mte90
Copy link
Owner

Mte90 commented Oct 5, 2022

It was just a way to updated the ticket to get people find it for hacktoberfest 😂

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants