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

Fluidly link sketch and browse pages #541

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 15, 2024
Merged

Fluidly link sketch and browse pages #541

merged 6 commits into from
Nov 15, 2024

Conversation

dabreegster
Copy link
Contributor

This PR adapts the ideas in https://github.com/acteng/atip/tree/show-local-sketches-browse-page. The browse page has new controls to import all local sketches as new layers. The user can then jump to the sketch tool and edit one of those sketches.

Demo: https://acteng.github.io/atip/ss_sb_integration

Design decisions I'm not entirely sure about:

  • The phrasing generally. "Your ATF/LCWIP schemes"? I started to use "local", but that word is very overloaded.
  • Should we have layers for both "your ATF" and "your LCWIP", or just one "your sketches" layer? The reasons for splitting them for the main data may not make as much sense for the (presumably small) amount of local sketches.
  • Can the filters be cleaned up for local ATF data? We won't ever have funding programme or milestone info, because there's no join with external data for local sketches.
  • When editing a file from browse, if it comes from the main data, you edit a copy. If it comes from locally, you edit the local file. That local file might have multiple schemes, even though you only selected one from browse.

let atfShow = showHideLayer(atfName);
let atfStyle = "fundingProgramme";
$: [atfColor, atfLegend] = pickStyle(atfStyle);
let mainAtfName = "main_atf_schemes";
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There's some boilerplate copying here. We could consider abstracting it a bit, but it has to be done carefully to be useful (like bundling all these variables together, leaving room to customize names/labels, etc). I'd like to decide about having one local layer vs local ATF + local LCWIP before doing anything though.

@dabreegster dabreegster merged commit a3a18c8 into main Nov 15, 2024
2 checks passed
@dabreegster dabreegster deleted the ss_sb_integration branch November 15, 2024 12:47
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.

1 participant