Fusejs FuseJS - Core

Comments and changes to this ticket

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Kit Goncharov August 2nd, 2009 @ 11:34 AM

  • Assigned user changed from “John-David Dalton” to “Kit Goncharov”
  • State changed from “new” to “open”
  • Tag set to “browser, env”
• 

  John-David Dalton August 14th, 2009 @ 07:37 AM

  partially resolved by https://github.com/jdalton/fusejs/commit/a4d4d306a7b00f4a0bdd4731034dfb3a25cd15f9

• 

  John-David Dalton August 14th, 2009 @ 07:40 AM

  A note on changing Fuse.Env.Feature(...) to Fuse.Env.hasFeature(..).

  Currently there is a Fuse.Env.Feature.set(...) and Fuse.Env.Feature.unset(...) would changing to
  hasFeature and hasBug make setting new checks seem awkward?

  Fuse.Env.hasFeature.set({...});
  

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Kit Goncharov August 14th, 2009 @ 11:06 AM

  Yep, that definitely would.

  A possible alternative might be to have two arguments for setting
  features/bugs and one argument for getting them:

  Fuse.Env.hasFeature('ELEMENT_PROPERTIES_ARE_ATTRIBUTES')
  //=> true (if IE)
  Fuse.Env.hasFeature('IE_IS_A_BUGGY_BROWSER', function(){
      return true;
  });
  //Returns the setter function
  

  Or maybe even Fuse.Env.addFeature and addBug...

• 

  John-David Dalton August 14th, 2009 @ 11:16 AM

  Currently Fuse.Env.hasFeature('SOME_FEATURE', 'ANOTHER_FEATURE') will return true only if both features are true.
  This may be confusing so I will probably drop this usage.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Juriy Zaytsev August 14th, 2009 @ 11:30 AM

  I'd rather have a way to test multiple features. It's actually pretty useful. What is setting/unsetting used for?

• 

  John-David Dalton August 14th, 2009 @ 01:03 PM

  setting and unsetting are for adding and removing tests.

• 

  John-David Dalton August 14th, 2009 @ 01:06 PM

  maybe Fuse.Env.addFeatureTest(...) too verbose... I dig how short addFeature is but the name is misleading cause its adding check not extending the feature-set of the environment.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Juriy Zaytsev August 14th, 2009 @ 01:21 PM

  I think set/unset seem like weird names for adding/removing user-defined feature tests. They sound more like toggling something on and off. I also think that hasFeature.set (method on method) and overloaded hasFeature are awkward.

  I would rather go with:

  Fuse.Env.hasFeature(testName1[, testName2[, ...]]);
  Fuse.Env.addFeatureTest(testName, testBody);
  

  The downside is that hasFeature('foo', 'bar') looks a bit awkward but I don't think it's worth adding something like hasFeatures for multiple tests support (or maybe hasFeature can be renamed to hasFeatures)

• 

  John-David Dalton August 14th, 2009 @ 01:41 PM

  I agree and think allowing more than 1 on a singular name is fine.

  currently the addFeatureTest equive allows only passing an object, but we can make that optional,
  1 argument -> object; 2 -> name and test

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Phred August 14th, 2009 @ 02:21 PM

  Doesn't passing one object do the same (but better) of N parameters?

  .addFeatureTest({
    name: 'foo'
    ,test: fn
    ,other: 'we can add and deprecate values here freely'
    ,unlike: 'when adding/removing additional passed in args'
  })
  

• 

  John-David Dalton August 14th, 2009 @ 02:34 PM

  @phred I was talking about just Fuse.Env.hasFeature(testName1[, testName2[, ...]]);.

  Which would basically be the quiv of hasFeature(testName1) && hasFeature(testName2) && hasFeature(textName3)

  Ya I would say for addFeatureTest a Fuse.Env.addFeatureTest(object) and Fuse.Env.addFeatureTest(name, test) is fine, no need to allow n number of arguments for that.

• 

  Joe Gornick September 30th, 2009 @ 10:31 PM

  • Assigned user changed from “Kit Goncharov” to “Joe Gornick”
• 

  Joe Gornick October 6th, 2009 @ 11:52 PM

  • State changed from “open” to “patched”
  • Assigned user changed from “Joe Gornick” to “John-David Dalton”

  Here's my commit: https://github.com/jgornick/fusejs/commit/d1449265157cc463710c76e52...

• 

  John-David Dalton January 27th, 2010 @ 10:37 AM

  • State changed from “patched” to “resolved”

  Resolved by https://github.com/jdalton/fusejs/commit/80a497c150879627175a22fcf23458b395d9c2c7