Skip to content
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

modified message when overriding existing quickmark #7635

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vhadzhiev
Copy link

Modified the message when the user wants to create a new quickmark and quickmark with that slug already exists. The new message shows the current marked URL and asks if the user wants to replace it. Closes #7622.

mschilli87

This comment was marked as resolved.

@vhadzhiev
Copy link
Author

nitpick: The commit message has a typo. 😉

10x, :)

@vhadzhiev vhadzhiev changed the title modified messasge when overriding existing quickmark modified message when overriding existing quickmark Mar 22, 2023
@mschilli87

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

@The-Compiler The-Compiler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! I added a suggestion on a better message wording.

The failing tests should be fine, looks like we have a couple of new flakiness issues with the recent Qt 6 merge.

qutebrowser/browser/urlmarks.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Florian Bruhin <me@the-compiler.org>
@mschilli87
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM now, though I'd prefer squashing the second commit into the first one for a cleaner Git log.

@The-Compiler
Copy link
Member

Looks like there was a syntax error in my suggestion - sorry! Could you please fix that up?

If you think that useful I can start refactoring the files to f-string in my free time.

Thanks for the offer - but there are tools like pyupgrade and flynt which can automate that work. The main issue right now is that doing so introduces a lot of code churn, causing more conflicts which currently open PRs. But for 4.0.0 we plan to take that step: #1455.

@vhadzhiev
Copy link
Author

Looks like there was a syntax error in my suggestion - sorry! Could you please fix that up?

If you think that useful I can start refactoring the files to f-string in my free time.

Thanks for the offer - but there are tools like pyupgrade and flynt which can automate that work. The main issue right now is that doing so introduces a lot of code churn, causing more conflicts which currently open PRs. But for 4.0.0 we plan to take that step: #1455.

I can do it, but this will probably create new commit. And I'm not very sure how to deal with the squashing.

LGTM now, though I'd prefer squashing the second commit into the first one for a cleaner Git log.

Maybe you can squash everything after that?

@The-Compiler
Copy link
Member

Don't worry about it - I can indeed just squash-merge this.

@mschilli87

This comment was marked as resolved.

@The-Compiler The-Compiler moved this from Focus to Inbox in Pull request backlog Aug 8, 2023
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ def set_mark():

if name in self.marks:
message.confirm_async(
title="Override existing quickmark?",
title=f"Override existing quickmark?\nOld URL: {self.marks[name]}",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The \n doesn't work in the title, and anyway it looks a bit better and is wrappable as body text
longoverride1
longoverride2

Suggested change
title=f"Override existing quickmark?\nOld URL: {self.marks[name]}",
title=f"Override existing quickmark?",
text=f"Old URL: {self.marks[name]}",

Pull request backlog automation moved this from Inbox to WIP Dec 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Show current quickmark URL in overwrite dialog
4 participants