Add optional card options to be passed to start-devcard-ui!

[Jannis]

Fall back to an empty options map. The options are stored in the app state of the system and are merged with each card's custom options in base-card.

Note: I've tested this with and without options. I've also briefly checked the devcards examples and they seem ok. But since my knowledge of the devcards internals is limited, I don't know whether this change might have other effects that I didn't consider.

Another question is: are card options the only thing we'd ever consider to be passed to start-devcard-ui! or should we keep it more flexible by assuming options to has a structure like

{:default-card-options {:frame false ...}
 ... other options ...}

rather than the one below?

{:frame false}

[bhauman]

This looks good, I will look at it more tomorrow.

I think the :default-card-options key would be the way to go. Also I think that I would rather dispatch on arity and skip the keyword options. Keyword options don't compose and they are hard to serialize if I want to pass options from a static config file into the function.

Thanks for taking the time to do this :)

[Jannis]

Yes, start-devcard-ui! with two different arities was what I tried first. It didn't work for some reason but I'm happy to give it another shot. So the definition would be something like:

(defmacro start-devcard-ui!
  ([] ...)
  ([options] ...))

Same for start-devcard-ui!* probably. And you'd pass options in like this:

(start-devcard-ui! {:default-card-options {:frame false}})

rather than

(start-devcard-ui! {:frame false})

Is that what you meant?

[bhauman]

Yeah that is what I was thinking.

Probably better to not dispatch on arity in the macro. But to just forward the args and dispatch on arity in the start-devcard-ui!* function.

[Jannis]

So you'd keep the (defmacro start-devcard-ui! [& [options]] ... signature but only for the macro? Or is there a different way to not have the macro provide versions with different arities?

[bhauman]

Sarry about not responding to this sooner. A bit busy and the current answer is I'm not sure. I'd have to experiment with it. I'm going to merge your patch and play with it :)

[Jannis]

No problem. That's fine with me. Better to play with it and eventually settle on an approach that you are comfortable with. :)