Master snippet options owl bso #3299
Conversation
|
This PR targets the un-managed branch odoo-dev/odoo:master-snippet-options-owl-ard, it needs to be retargeted before it can be merged. |
bso-odoo
force-pushed
the
master-snippet-options-owl-bso
branch
5 times, most recently
from
6e6892f
to
9153992
Compare
| const themeFontsNb = nbFonts - (this.googleLocalFonts.length + this.googleFonts.length); | ||
| const googleLocalFontsOffset = nbFonts - this.googleLocalFonts.length; | ||
| for (let fontNb = 0; fontNb < nbFonts; fontNb++) { | ||
| const realFontNb = fontNb + 1; | ||
| const fontKey = weUtils.getCSSVariableValue(`font-number-${realFontNb}`, style); | ||
| this.allFonts.push(fontKey); | ||
| let fontName = fontKey.slice(1, -1); // Unquote | ||
| let fontFamily = fontName; | ||
| const isSystemFonts = fontName === "SYSTEM_FONTS"; | ||
| if (isSystemFonts) { | ||
| fontName = _t("System Fonts"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was copied from WeFontFamilyPicker widget, but the code was not removed, shouldn't it be?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I actually forgot to get rid of the component's start method which did build the buttons "manually" - because this is now done in the template using the data structure built in the FontFamilyUserValue.
| if (htmlContent && htmlContent !== this.state.textContent) { | ||
| const markupContent = markup(htmlContent); | ||
| // Avoid converting the markup back to a string. | ||
| markupContent.trim = () => markupContent; | ||
| this.state.textContent = markupContent; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, why does this happen? After thinking a bit about it, we might want to make sure the markup is not trimmed where it currently is, in case we need to perform other string operations, we would have to void the methods here as well. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried to do that, but I found no way to "safely" determine if something is a markup.
IMO (but yours might differ), checking .constructor.name === "Markup" looks like an even worse hack.
Or we could go for a distinct state field markupContent ? And handle it differently on the other side ?
bso-odoo
force-pushed
the
master-snippet-options-owl-bso
branch
4 times, most recently
from
0c65909
to
d11fc02
Compare
bso-odoo
force-pushed
the
master-snippet-options-owl-bso
branch
from
d11fc02
to
a44ba52
Compare
| this.state.option.instance._onGoogleFontsCustoRequest({ | ||
| // TODO: @owl-options should we allow something else that "variable" ? (most likely not) | ||
| values: {[this.props.variable]: `'${font}'`}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a huge fan of this, but OK for now. Let's just keep in mind that we should maybe have a way for widgets to request something from the option.
detrouxdev
force-pushed
the
master-snippet-options-owl-ard
branch
from
fb98eb8
to
50c6b00
Compare
bso-odoo
force-pushed
the
master-snippet-options-owl-bso
branch
15 times, most recently
from
b384892
to
dd127ca
Compare
Includes header, footer, copyright and theme options. task-3850413
task-3850413
task-3850413
task-3850413
task-3850413
bso-odoo
force-pushed
the
master-snippet-options-owl-bso
branch
from
06f3c99
to
3de47f4
Compare
detrouxdev
force-pushed
the
master-snippet-options-owl-ard
branch
9 times, most recently
from
633ee8d
to
1240c73
Compare
PR created to ease discussion during the conversion of snippet options to Owl
Local temporary work based on ARD's branch