-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.4k
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
doc: Add a spec for Application State #7972
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea this all seems reasonable to me.
[comment]: # Will the proposed change improve reliability? If not, why make the change? | ||
|
||
The comment in this section heavily suggests that we should only make changes that improve reliability, not ones that | ||
maintain it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
<aside> Yea, this "Capabilities" section I've always hated. I think if you're outside MSFT, then you don't have any idea what to put here, and "capabilities" is a terrible heading for it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
agree
|
||
This has no direct impact on the UI/UX; however, we may want to add a button to general settings page titled "reset all | ||
dialogs" or "don't not ask me again about those things that, some time ago, I told you to not ask me about". | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd maybe add a note that we're not intending for the user to hand-edit state.json
, so we're not as concerned about how the contents of that file are serialized. This is unlike settings.json
, which has to have a semblance of user friendliness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good call. Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
More curious about the applications than the overall design, itself. But it's fair to say that that's out of scope so meh.
@carlos-zamora clarify? A whole section was dedicated to why (the applications). Any questions I can answer? |
I don't mean it as a bad thing haha. I mean more that I'm curious what the design for "don't ask me again" or "keep the profile deleted" would look like. But I'm guessing the specific design for those settings is a bit out of scope here (if they even need a design, frankly). Like, I'm curious if we should move |
So,
Disabling the source is a bigger hammer than deleting one profile generated by the source. |
Reasonable question though! |
|
||
## UI/UX Design | ||
|
||
This has no direct impact on the UI/UX; however, we may want to add a button to general settings page titled "reset all |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is pretty important and we should ensure there's an easy reset.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks fine to me.
This draft pull request (Review link) introduces a specification for "cross-session" app state that isn't stored in the user's settings.json.
PR Checklist
Review link