-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
feat: field label improvements (experimental) #9470
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
Draft
BenHenning
wants to merge
9
commits into
RaspberryPiFoundation:add-screen-reader-support-experimental
Choose a base branch
from
BenHenning:field-and-block-label-improvements
base: add-screen-reader-support-experimental
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+82
−57
Draft
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a92283a
feat: Add verbosity to block labels.
BenHenning 6a7e5e0
chore: Undo unrelated block definition changes.
BenHenning ad95469
fix: Docs + some small shortcut updates.
BenHenning 1bb3537
Merge branch 'add-screen-reader-support-experimental' into add-verbos…
BenHenning 8baacc2
Merge branch 'add-screen-reader-support-experimental' into add-verbos…
BenHenning 6d0418e
chore: Fix typo & address reviewer comment.
BenHenning 1d4e167
fix: Re-add dropped visibility modifier.
BenHenning 1331c0c
Merge branch 'add-screen-reader-support-experimental' into add-verbos…
BenHenning 224be2d
Revert "chore: Undo unrelated block definition changes."
BenHenning File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Could this not be abstract and have a default implementation that returned an empty string (or null)? I found myself going through and returning empty strings for quite a few custom fields in order to get up and running with this change, and having a default implementation would reduce the overhead.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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 was on the fence of going with a default implementation but this gives strong incentive to. Within core Blockly we more or less need to explicitly decide what to provide here in all cases so I didn't have enough context to decide on a default value.
Could you maybe provide some context on why so many of your custom fields have an empty string? I'd expect that to be atypical in general since I expect that basically all fields have a non-default value (except maybe text input when nothing has yet been inputted).