-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
Move landing popup feature back to the modules
argument
#1310
Comments
But we also have header, footer and title which are of the same importance as landing page |
I think I would disagree with that statement. This is just a popup which once closed - won't appear anymore. On the other hand, header, footer etc. is a persistent UX element visible throughout the whole user journey through the app. This is why I personally consider this as a less relevant. All in all, we have the following arguments that should be seen as follows:
The landing popup functionality plays very nicely with the responsibility of the Why do I care? It is a well known fact that |
Landing module is a popup, and we had no control over controlling multiple popups that could be created with modules (logging popup). So to prevent the behavior that landing popup does not work with other modules involving popups we decided to move it to the |
Thanks for the explanation. It looks to me that the implemented solution of the issue you described created a new issue. For me, even worse one as this is even more visible - actually the most visible as it could be as this modifies the top function from the package which we should be extremely careful about.
Yes and no. This is true that it's not similar to all the other modules but on the other hand out of the top-level arguments we have, this fits the most into the "modules" argument.
I have a similar thought but see my previous message:
Also, it does not solve the landing popup issue. It's a separate issue though. Let's try to stick to the landing popup topic. |
We can always have the depracation period. We can introduce UI parameter that will be a list, and this will handle For the landing popup I think we might need a bigger team discussion as I don't feel authorised to speak for everybody in this matter |
I disagree. I think it is not a good fit to include not
P.S. |
There are two broad ways in which teal can be used:
If the landing popup is part of the |
@pawelru we are getting back to this discussion as this is a potential blocker for next What is your current opinion on the matter? Do the proposed arguments changed your attituted? |
Oh it was quite a while ago. Skimming through the comments I have to admit that not really - unfortunately. Let's try to organise a quick chat about that with whoever wants to contribute - it would be faster to make a call. |
I'm open for a discussion involving @donyunardi and @kumamiao |
@donyunardi would you mind scheduling a call this or next week? If we align on the approach, I think we can then account for the result of the discussion during the PI Planning |
I sent an invite for next Monday, past refinement |
Hey team, thanks for the meeting yesterday! I think that's a good opportunity to restart the conversation. One of the propositions was to reshape
and every other customization, like server additions, footer, custom JSS, landing popup, could be custom wrappers
|
Init should have only limited arguments: For this issue, we'll focus on landing_pop, header, title, and footer argument. Acceptance Criteria
|
Recently we have moved the landing popup feature to become one of the arguments of
init()
. I don't think it's correct. If you compare the relevance of all the other arguments includingmodules
ordata
- this is clearly not a good fit. Conceptually this should remain as a module. Let's move it back.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: