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

Use tagged version of focus-shift #176

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 24, 2024
Merged

Conversation

guyonvarch
Copy link
Member

This indicates more in the face which version of focus-shift we are using.

This also upgrade focus-shift with the following change:

  • Ignore non-rendered elements

We could think about using nix to pull the dependency, but as this may not be updated that much, and as we have only this dependency, keep it simple for now?

This indicates more in the face which version of focus-shift we are
using.

This also upgrade `focus-shift` with the following change:

- Ignore non-rendered elements

We could think about using `nix` to pull the dependency, but as this may
not be updated that much, and as we have only this dependency, keep it
simple for now?
@guyonvarch guyonvarch added the reviewable Ready for initial or iterative review label Sep 19, 2024
controller/dune Outdated
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
(Changelog.html as Changelog.html)
(gui/reset.css as static/reset.css)
(gui/style.css as static/style.css)
(gui/vendor/focus-shift.js as static/vendor/focus-shift.js)
(gui/vendor/focus-shift-1-0-0.js as static/vendor/focus-shift.js)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there an issue with using the version number in the filename, 1.0.0?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you mean focus-shift-1.0.0.js for example? I think this sould work as well.

I was not certain it was a good idea, because it looks like an extension, but in the other hand, it gets further away from the version.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, exactly. I think this is the conventional way, and therefore more easily recognized as a version number.

We use this same naming pattern for the ISOs here:

playos/default.nix

Lines 115 to 120 in 5f6bfb6

+ lib.optionalString buildLive ''
ln -s ${components.live}/iso/${components.safeProductName}-live-${components.version}.iso $out/${components.safeProductName}-live-${components.version}.iso
''
# Installer ISO image
+ lib.optionalString buildInstaller ''
ln -s ${components.installer}/iso/${components.safeProductName}-installer-${components.version}.iso $out/${components.safeProductName}-installer-${components.version}.iso

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@knuton knuton merged commit 8b47471 into dividat:main Sep 24, 2024
5 checks passed
@knuton knuton removed the reviewable Ready for initial or iterative review label Sep 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants