Skip to content

Add: new function getCharacterName()#6023

Merged
SlySven merged 1 commit intoMudlet:developmentfrom
SlySven:Add_newFunction_getCharacterName
Apr 1, 2022
Merged

Add: new function getCharacterName()#6023
SlySven merged 1 commit intoMudlet:developmentfrom
SlySven:Add_newFunction_getCharacterName

Conversation

@SlySven
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@SlySven SlySven commented Mar 24, 2022

This is one portion of the stalled PR #3952 that can be lifted from there and be implemented without raising any eyebrows (IMHO).

It returns the string that the user entered into the "Character name:" field on the "Connection profile" dialogue and is needed to allow a shared module to customise its behaviour depending on the particular profile that it is being used with on the basis of the identifier being sent for login purposes - c.f. getProfileName() which instead identifies the profile name which is very likely not the same text.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Lyons slysven@virginmedia.com

@SlySven SlySven requested a review from a team as a code owner March 24, 2022 16:14
@SlySven SlySven requested review from a team March 24, 2022 16:14
@demonnic
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

code looks ok to me, will hold off on approval until I can test

@SlySven
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

SlySven commented Mar 25, 2022

/refresh links

This is one portion of the stalled PR Mudlet#3952 that can be lifted from there
and be implemented without raising any eyebrows (IMHO).

It returns the string that the user entered into the "Character name:"
field on the "Connection profile" dialogue and is needed to allow a shared
module to customise its behaviour depending on the particular profile that
it is being used with on the basis of the identifier being sent for login
purposes - *c.f.*
[`getProfileName()`](https://wiki.mudlet.org/w/Manual:Lua_Functions#getProfileName)
which instead identifies the profile name which is very likely not the same
text.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Lyons <slysven@virginmedia.com>
@SlySven SlySven force-pushed the Add_newFunction_getCharacterName branch from 4fe9228 to 5d60b1d Compare March 25, 2022 05:26
@mudlet-machine-account mudlet-machine-account added this to the 4.16.0 milestone Mar 25, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Messages
✔️

PR type: Addition

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 5d60b1d

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@SlySven
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

SlySven commented Apr 1, 2022

📚 Of course the documentation has already been prepared in Area51: getCharacterName(...) .

@SlySven SlySven merged commit 9deb80d into Mudlet:development Apr 1, 2022
@SlySven SlySven deleted the Add_newFunction_getCharacterName branch April 1, 2022 15:58
@SlySven
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

SlySven commented Apr 1, 2022

📚 Documentation promoted from Area51 to main Wiki area.

@vadi2
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

vadi2 commented Apr 1, 2022

A bit early, it's not released yet! Needs to stay in area 51 until release:

@Kebap
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Kebap commented Apr 2, 2022

Reverted those changes now.
Also if you were to promote the documentation to main Wiki area, please leave all those references to PR #3952 which isn't released yet either.

@SlySven
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

SlySven commented Apr 3, 2022

A bit early, it's not released yet! Needs to stay in area 51 until release:

Well, it is now out there in the PTBs so users of those might want to use it - and it did include the Mudlet release information - i.e. 4.16 and that is the next release isn't it - so no user of older versions can be in doubt why it doesn't appear in their version.

As it is if we hold off on moving the documentation for functions that have been merged into the development branch than it means that everything will have to be shifted over at the point where the release is produced - and I thought you wanted to reduced the workload of doing a release...

🤷‍♂️

@vadi2
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

vadi2 commented Apr 3, 2022

Definitely do, but not at the cost of user experience - we ought to have an automated way to transfer the functions instead: #5859

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants