On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:58 PM Adel Atallah <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:08 PM Marius Dumitru Florea > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Try to view the macro parameters listed as a boolean expression. For the > > include macro we would have: > > > > (page XOR (reference AND type) XOR document) OR section OR context > > > Wouldn't it be: (page XOR (reference AND type) XOR document) *AND* > section *AND* context ? > No. AND means (logically) both sides are required. You can specify the section parameter without specifying the context parameter. So it's definitely a *logical / boolean* OR between them. I put AND between reference and type just to show that there might be cases when two (or more) parameters must be specified together (i.e. either you specify both or you specify none of them). In our case the type parameter has a default value so you can specify only the reference. This means it's actually OR between reference and type in the case of the include macro. > I just feel like you can just have 2 types of "operators": one to > exclude (XOR) and the other to include (AND) parameters. > I still think there can be 3 operators (if we want to cover everything). As I said, you may want to express the fact that a parameter is mandatory only if some other parameter is specified. We can't express this ATM so I guess we can work only with XOR and OR. > > > > > * the parentheses define the parameter groups > > * the boolean operators specify the relation between the members of a > group > > > > We then need to express this using Java annotations. In any case, this > is a > > **tree** structure (not a flat structure). > > What you describe could probably be done with what we proposed but > maybe we can have something more explicit: > > public void setReference(String reference) > > @Depends("reference") > public void setType(EntityType type) > > @Conflict("reference") > public void setPage(String page) > > Could that work? We would need to write all the logic behind to build the > tree: > 1. All parameters are joined by an 'AND' by default => page AND > reference AND type > 2. Page and Reference are conflicting => (page XOR reference) AND type > 3. Type depends on Reference => (page XOR (reference AND type)) > > WDYT? > I'm not sure how @Depends and @Conflict defines the tree structure in general. I was rather thinking of something like: @GroupPath("target[XOR]") page @GroupPath("target[XOR]/entityReference") reference @GroupPath("target[XOR]/entityReference") type @GroupPath("target[XOR]") document If we want subgroups then we need to specify a path. The complex part is to specify the "operator" that should be used within a subgroup. > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:30 PM Adel Atallah <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:20 AM Marius Dumitru Florea > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:34 PM Adel Atallah <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > So what we thought about with Vincent for implementing the > "concept of > > > > > aliases or groups" would be to actually have two new annotations > that > > > > > we would use on macro properties. > > > > > The first one is a "Group" annotation which is meant to indicate > that > > > > > some properties are part of the same group, obviously. > > > > > The second is an "Alternative" annotation which is meant to > indicate > > > > > that only one property / group of properties can be used (among the > > > > > ones that are part of the alternative). > > > > > Here is an example: > > > > > We want for the Include macro to be able to specify either: > > > > > the "reference" and "type" parameters > > > > > or > > > > > the "page" parameter > > > > > For that, we will change the IncludeMacroParameters java class like > > > this: > > > > > > > > > > @Alternative("reference") > > > > > @Group("entityReference") > > > > > public void setReference(String reference) > > > > > > > > > > @Alternative("reference") > > > > > @Group("entityReference") > > > > > public void setType(EntityType type) > > > > > > > > > > @Alternative("reference") > > > > > public void setPage(String page) > > > > > > > > > > In the WYSIWYG side, we will only be able to specify either the > > > > > "reference" and the "type" or the "page" parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would make more sense, at least in this case, to have the > > > > alternative as an attribute of the group, because semantically the > > > > "entityReference" group is an alternative to the page parameter. You > > > can't > > > > say that the type parameter alone is an alternative to the page > > > parameter. > > > > > > > > The @Group annotation is clear. No doubt about it. I'm not sure about > > > > the @Alternative annotation. I'm thinking that the "alternative" is > also > > > a > > > > group, where only one item from the group can be used, which could be > > > > expressed with an attribute of the @Group annotation. > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, but how can it be used? If I retake my > previous > > > example, will it be: > > > > > > @Group(name = "entityReference", alternative = "reference") > > > public void setReference(String reference) > > > > > > @Group(name = "entityReference", alternative = "reference") > > > public void setType(EntityType type) > > > > > > @Group(name = "page", alternative = "reference") > > > public void setPage(String page) > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Adel > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:51 AM Marius Dumitru Florea > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:31 PM Vincent Massol < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Sep 2018, at 14:47, Adel Atallah < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:00 PM Vincent Massol < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> On 5 Jul 2018, at 12:06, Vincent Massol < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>> On 4 Jul 2018, at 12:07, Thomas Mortagne < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Here are more details on the actual use case we need to > > > support: > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> In include/Display macro either you set: > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> * "reference" and "type" (which default to DOCUMENT) > > > > > > > >>>> * or you set “page" > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Globally I think we need to add 3 concepts to macro > parameter > > > > > > > descriptor: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> 1) The concept of “deprecated” parameter. For example for > > > > > “document” > > > > > > > in the include macro. > > > > > > > >>> 2) The concept of aliases or groups, i.e the ability to > list > > > > > > > parameters that are mutually exclusive. Example: reference + > type > > > vs > > > > > page > > > > > > > for display/include macros. This would mean that in the Macro > > > Dialog > > > > > UI if > > > > > > > you select one of those the other gets unselected/cleared out > (you > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > have mutually exclusive params have values). > > > > > > > >>> 3) The concept of Advanced parameters. For example, we > should > > > put > > > > > > > reference + type as advanced parameters so that they are not > shown > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > user by default (and so that the page parameter is more > > > highlighted). > > > > > Users > > > > > > > would need to click on Advanced to see advanced parameters. I > think > > > > > we’re > > > > > > > doing something automatic today (I don’t remember the details) > to > > > try > > > > > to > > > > > > > hide some parameters but we should probably review this. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> WDYT? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Ping! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Do we agree about this? If we do we can then create jira > issue > > > > > about it > > > > > > > and take it for implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, I can create the jira issue if it's ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Marius: Ok for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
