search

nehtik / epgp

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/epgp
0 stars 0 forks source link

Enhancement : Show member's rank in EPGP report #429

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I'm using v5.4.9 and I'd like to request that either an extra column or the
tooltip popup be populated with some data about the member.

The key thing I'd like to see is guild member's rank. This would make it so
much easier when applying rules such as members before trialists and/or alts.

This could involve a very small change to the script at line 1263 in v5.4.9
ui.lua to add the text to the tooltip. 

    r:SetScript(
      "OnEnter",
      function(self)
        if EPGP:GetNumAlts(self.name) > 0 then
          GameTooltip_SetDefaultAnchor(GameTooltip, self)
          GameTooltip:AddLine(L["Alts"])
          for i=1,EPGP:GetNumAlts(self.name) do
            GameTooltip:AddLine(EPGP:GetAlt(self.name, i), 1, 1, 1)
          end
          GameTooltip:ClearAllPoints()
          GameTooltip:SetPoint("TOPLEFT", self, "TOPRIGHT")
          GameTooltip:Show()
        end
      end)

could become :

    r:SetScript(
      "OnEnter",
      function(self)
        GameTooltip_SetDefaultAnchor(GameTooltip, self)
        GameTooltip:AddLine(L["Rank: "]..self.rank)
        GameTooltip:AddLine(L["Zone: "]..self.zone)
        GameTooltip:AddLine(L["Notes: "]..self.notes)
        if EPGP:GetNumAlts(self.name) > 0 then
          GameTooltip:AddLine(L["Alts"])
          for i=1,EPGP:GetNumAlts(self.name) do
            GameTooltip:AddLine(EPGP:GetAlt(self.name, i), 1, 1, 1)
          end
        end
        GameTooltip:ClearAllPoints()
        GameTooltip:SetPoint("TOPLEFT", self, "TOPRIGHT")
        GameTooltip:Show()
      end)

The row object would need to be extended and have extra variables which
could easily be set when the EPGP values are set. These should be very
easily dealt with as you have triggers in place for guild roster updates at
present anyway. So other than simply populating the extra row values there
is little extra needed.

If you like the idea I can finish it off and attach a patch if desired.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 4 Jun 2009 at 2:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
No objections in adding it to a tooltip. Once you are ready with the patch use 
epgp/scripts/codereview.py to submit it for a codereview.

Thanks!

Original comment by evlogimenos on 6 Jun 2009 at 10:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I could see epgp/scripts/codereview.py in the folder but had no means of 
running. Is
it a python script? 

I am an addon developer and use SVN so what I did was to compile a patch using
Tortoise and have attached that here. You will see from the patch that there are
really minimal changes to make this work.

I wasn't able to test any of the other localisations so I didn't touch any
localisation file other than localization.enUS.lua I wasn't sure of your 
localisation
policy so I thought it best to leave them alone this does of course mean that 
those
other localisations are missing the 3 additional entries listed in the patch.

Original comment by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 20 Jul 2009 at 5:12

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Perhaps that last comment wasn't clear. The attached patch file is fully 
working in
enUS localisation. Hopefully you can incorporate these small tweaks into the 
base code.

Original comment by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 20 Jul 2009 at 7:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
This is also very important to our guild. 
Is this being added to a future epgp release? Or as a patch?

please let me know how to implement this.

Issue: Show GUILD RANK in EPGP Report

Original comment by Hobb...@gmail.com on 21 Jul 2009 at 5:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
If you upload to codereview it would be a lot easier to review the patch. If 
you are on windows you can install 
python from http://www.python.org/download/releases/. 2.6.2 would do. Do not go 
with the 3.x releases since 
most python programs do not work with them.

Thanks!

Original comment by evlogimenos on 21 Jul 2009 at 9:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Second attempt to reply - reply on forum doesn't seem to have posted.

I installed python v2.6.2 on my Vista box, ran a command prompt and changed 
into the
epgp/scripts folder. I then typed codereview.py to execute the code. I guessed 
this
was what it was as I could see no readme to tell me what to do, and your 
comment just
said to run that. However I got an error immediately saying ...

C:\Games\World of Warcraft\Interface\AddOns\epgp\scripts\codereview.py:37: Depre
cationWarning: the md5 module is deprecated; use hashlib instead
  import md5
Got error status from ['svn', 'info']:

Should I have had some command line parameters to the script if so what? Are 
there
any instructions for what to do with the python script? I couldn't find any.

The previously attached patch is REALLY REALLY small and I tried to ensure I 
kept the
changes to a minimum and followed your coding standards. I'm happy to try again 
with
codereview if you tell me how its meant to work please.

Original comment by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 22 Jul 2009 at 6:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
You need to install a command line svn client 
(http://www.sliksvn.com/en/download) 
and make sure it is in your path for codereview.py to work.

Original comment by evlogimenos on 25 Jul 2009 at 5:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Ok I've managed to post an issue and hopefully you can now see it. How exactly 
is a
review conducted?

Original comment by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 26 Jul 2009 at 5:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I replied in the review. As for the different svn client, I am unsure why it is 
needed or 
not. I have no windows machine so I do not know if tortoise svn has a command 
line 
executable for the codereview.py script to use.

The review on codereview is a lot easier to conduct than here in the bug 
report. You 
comment the code directly and discussion happens a lot more naturally. Most of 
the 
code we commit to the tree goes through a review, so do not feel that this is 
an extra 
burden for you. Apologies if this seems too much but really it makes life for 
the users 
a lot better :-)

Original comment by evlogimenos on 27 Jul 2009 at 6:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
No its ok - I worked out how to do it. Sorry if I appeared too frustrated.

Original comment by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 27 Jul 2009 at 10:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Somewhat insulting to say I needed "handholding" to setup python etc. When it 
was you
that was utterly wrong about what was required.

All you needed to do was to say please upload the patch file to the review site 
by
creating an issue. Instead you pointed me to a python script (NOT NEEDED) and a
command line SVN client (NOT NEEDED). If you had simply said to upload the 
patch by
creating a new issue, which is what I eventually did this would have taken a 
whole
lot less time.

I was offering to assist by adding functionality to your addon, instead you 
have been
obstructive and condescending. I have 26 years programming experience and so am 
well
aware of the issues, I simply hadn't used the googlecode website before and so 
didn't
see why I needed python etc to upload a patch. It transpires you were completely
wrong and I didn't need python or a different svn client at all and so this only
added to the confusion.

You now want me to recode everything I've done to assist you. Sorry but why 
should I,
if you want to provide this feature for your users you are perfectly capable of
adding it yourself. I've given you working code, if you want to tweak it to 
suit your
own ideas about what works and what doesnt that is entirely your perogative. 
However
to be honest I'm fed up of jumping through your needless hoops, with no end in 
sight.
As I say the code works perfectly well for myself and others in my guild and 
those
who have contacted me directly for the patch.

I was trying to help, all I got was obstruction and insults, I shall not try 
again in
future.

2009/7/28 Alkis Evlogimenos ('Αλκης Ευλογημένος) 
<alkis@evlogimenos.com>

    The difference between that and doing the changes is that this patch is going to
take a lot longer to apply. Also, consider that you needed handholding to set 
python
and svn up to send the review, then I spend time to do the review and you now 
saying,
you don't care to complete it, it works for you so I should do it on my own. 
That's a
terrible waste of time for me, I could have implemented this in less time than I
already invested in it. So the least you could do is finish the code.

    2009/7/28 Alexander Bisset <shammylevva@googlemail.com>

        Ok well fair enough, by all means change the patch to achieve that.

        I am happy that it works as I have it and use it for my guild, if you want to
provide the functionality for others I'm sure you can adjust the code 
accordingly.

    -- 

    Alkis

Original comment by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 30 Jul 2009 at 1:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
- I did not insult you at any point in our discussions. I am not sure why you 
say 
that.
- Apologies for sending you to the wrong direction with python, I forget there 
is a 
way to upload patches through the web interface since I never use it.
- I do not want you to recode everything. I want you to refactor some of the 
code 
because it is not where it should be.
- If you want to help, you have to respect other teams code styles and 
processes. 
Code style: you didn't respect even after I asked in the code review. I let it 
go 
because it is easy to fix. Process: you mock it with your response "do on your 
own". - When you have no intention on working on a code review, please say that 
from the 
get go. When you ask the whys and why nots the reviewer spends quite a bit of 
time to 
explain why things need to change. If they just go to void you are 
intentionally 
wasting their time. Also your reaction: "oh you know what, do it yourself", is 
insulting.
- You also seem to be getting very frustrated quite easily. Maybe you should 
consider 
anger management classes?

In any case I am sure your efforts were in good faith but sadly your methods 
are not 
compatible with ours. Thanks for your time!

Original comment by evlogimenos on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
As a 3rd party observer, I am hoping that this enhancement gets put into the 
final 
add on. In the end, this is a very useful for a lot of guilds as many 
(including 
mine) partially tie loot bidding to rank. It would make our lives 1,000xs 
easier if 
rank would show up in the ML report.

I'm sure you are both talented programmers or add ons like this would never 
happen.
Lets forget about the process and discuss solutions to make this happen.

Alkis, Did he give you enough code to complete the work on your own?
If so, do you have intentions of adding this feature in an update? (Timeline?)

maybe it makes some sense to post a guideline to other programmers on your 
process 
and the "suggested" way to post code changes/patches. If this is already out 
there I 
apologize. I am acting as a mediator in cyberspace LOL. I just hate to see two 
talented guys working on the same project butt heads over something silly.

Original comment by Hobb...@gmail.com on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I had every intention of helping. However I had no idea of the level of effort 
that
would take and you provide no information to people looking to assist on what is
involved in trying to help.

Normally when someone is working on an addon they take other peoples ideas and 
code
it for themselves. If someone else goes to the hassle of providing a patch 
(scroll up
to find it) they look at the patch and say ah ok I see how he did that. Not 
quite to
my style but thanks I'll adapt it to fit in my addon.

What is NOT normal is to expect commercial level patch management and review
processes. You DID NOT SAY at the outset that was what you expected. You said 
"use 
epgp/scripts/codereview.py to submit it for a codereview." With no explanation 
of
what you expected a code review to be.

To be clear my expectation was that you'd review the patch yourself see if it 
was
viable in your addon and decide to incorporate it or tweak it to suit your 
coding
practices this is 100% the norm with Wow addons. I'm the author of half a dozen
addons and participate widely in addon forums, and have never come across 
anyone who
wanted anything other than the patch submitted.

I regret we have "butted-heads" this wasn't my intention, I was just frustrated 
by
the way you seemed to be putting up obstacles at every stage to my 
contribution. As
such I had no way of knowing if I ploughed ahead and did what you asked if 
you'd just
come back with more obstacles and so I quickly came to the conclusion that I'd 
done
more than enough to prove the concept and it was far far better to leave you to 
get
on with it than to jump through more hoops with no information on where it 
might end.

It is this lack of direction and over the top expectations that frustrated me 
most.
I've consulted other developers and shown them this correspondence and the
overwhelming view is that you are expecting above and beyond what is reasonable 
for a
simple little patch to a wow addon.

I believe I have tried to act in good faith, I supplied an idea, I supplied a
solution now its up to you to decide whether you implement that solution in a 
manner
that suits your own working methods. To ask more of anyone who is volunteering
information is overkill. If you do expect this you should be totally upfront at 
the
outset as if I'd known in advance I'd never have submitted a patch I'd simply 
have
altered the code for my own purposes. 

I just thought it better to share my work with a wider audience and to help 
improve
your excellent product. I do regret any rudeness I would ask however that you 
provide
clearer information to possible contributors in future so that you don't 
irritate
more people who are trying to be helpful to the wider gaming community.

Original comment by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
You really like to waste time do you? For a patch that takes 15 minutes to 
write we 
have a total toll of:

1) A review that took 15 minutes for you to write it and 15 minutes total for 
me to 
review it. 30 minutes
2) You ask other developers about it our communication medium. Say 5 developers 
for 5 minutes each, another 25 minutes. Add the 5 minutes you spent as well, 30 
minutes.
3) Continuing the discussion here for another 10 or so minutes for each of us, 
another 20 minutes.

So in the end for a 15 minute worth of code we already spent 1h20 minutes of 
engineering time. If you just made the changes it would have been committed by 
now.

Original comment by evlogimenos on 30 Jul 2009 at 5:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Bah, sorry this came off a bit offensive. Didn't mean it that way, I am on a 
rush. But rly 
think about the time we spent on this already and if it is worth it.

Original comment by evlogimenos on 30 Jul 2009 at 5:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Fair enough, lets let it rest. I do hope you can see fit to adding the concept 
of my
code in whatever manner to your excellent addon. Please keep up the good work 
and
please allow willing contributors just to submit code in future that YOU 
examine and
integrate, without expecting them to go over it all again too.

I look forward to seeing future improvements.

Original comment by ShammyLe...@gmail.com on 31 Jul 2009 at 8:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
This is fixed in r1283.

Original comment by evlogimenos on 1 Aug 2009 at 11:41