SMerrony / EWItool

EWI4000s Tool (Complete rewrite in Java)
GNU General Public License v3.0
26 stars 10 forks source link

Feature request - allow the patch editor to be shown, without connecting to an EWI #19

Open Andy2No opened 6 years ago

Andy2No commented 6 years ago

(Mostly reposted from another issue thread, as requested)

I found I often wanted to look at the patch editor, without having to connect the EWI and download the patches. It's particularly useful for development, but also useful for other reasons, e.g. to help answer questions in the user forum for ewitool, or just for learning purposes.

While trying out some small changes to the 2.00 release, a while ago, I was starting to worry about wearing out the batteries or the off switch on my EWI while making changes to the code and trying them, over and over, so I came up with a quick hack for getting to see the patch editor without loading patches, to shorten the development loop -

I commented out the line in Main,java, which disables the patch editor from being initialised on start up:

2.00 release, Main.java line 109:

// patchEditorTab.setDisable( true ); // comment out that line - it gets initialised with a blank patch, either way

I'd noticed that if I load the patches from the EWI, then click on the patch editor tab, I was looking at a blank patch, so there didn't seem a need to suppress the tab beforehand. It does make things easier when you're tweaking the patch editor user interface (for code development purposes) - there's no need for the EWI to be connected at all, and you don't have to wait while it loads them in.

SMerrony commented 6 years ago

I'm not against this idea, but I have some reservations as follows...

Perhaps a command line option should be added? Something like --debugging to show disabled tabs and produce all the detailed debugging output.

Andy2No commented 6 years ago

I meant to reply a while ago, but I had some more to say, which probably ought to be raised as a new issue.

Yes, making it a command line debugging option seems like a reasonable work around, if you're not sure it will behave in a stable way. Initialising with a valid empty patch, and if needed, an empty patch set, would work too.

You asked a while ago for ideas about changing the workflow, and I didn't quite understand what you meant by that, at the time. I'll start a new issue, to discuss that, and add a link from here later, because it's related.

Andy2No commented 6 years ago

See related issue #21