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

When adding annotations, add a gcs options. #654

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 13, 2016
Merged

When adding annotations, add a gcs options. #654

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 13, 2016

Conversation

manthey
Copy link
Contributor

@manthey manthey commented Dec 12, 2016

New annotations should default to the interface gcs, not the map gcs. Note that this breaks the current interface for annotationLayer.addAnnotation.

New annotations should default to the interface gcs, not the map gcs.  Note that this breaks the current interface for annotationLayer.addAnnotation.
@manthey
Copy link
Contributor Author

manthey commented Dec 12, 2016

@danlamanna This will make it so you don't have to call transform.transformCoordinates when you add a new annotation.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Dec 12, 2016

Current coverage is 86.89% (diff: 100%)

Merging #654 into master will increase coverage by <.01%

@@             master       #654   diff @@
==========================================
  Files            87         87          
  Lines          8586       8591     +5   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches          0          0          
==========================================
+ Hits           7460       7465     +5   
  Misses         1126       1126          
  Partials          0          0          

Powered by Codecov. Last update ffa4df7...ee94db7

@@ -348,7 +358,7 @@ var annotationLayer = function (args) {
state: geo_annotation.state.create,
layer: this
});
this.addAnnotation(m_this.currentAnnotation);
this.addAnnotation(m_this.currentAnnotation, null);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it could be little confusing in the way we are using null or undefined. I would suggest that if it is null or undefined, we fall back to map.gcs(). Should we create keys perhaps? map_gcs, map_ingcs? Thoughts?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is done throughout the other modules, so that none is the special value that can be used internally to mean use the map.gcs() while not forcing a user to constantly pass gcs parameters when what they mostly want is the map.ingcs().

I would not make the undefined value go to map.gcs(), as that is certainly not what a user wants (they want the interface gcs, not the display gcs).

Using map_gcs instead of none would be okay, but this really should be a constant defined somewhere. In which case, I lament that we don't have one constants module. The user already has to import events and actions to get constants.

Copy link
Member

@aashish24 aashish24 Dec 12, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree with all of what you said above. May we can add constants and use map_gcs as a replacement for none in a separate PR. Care to create a issue for it? I would think that having a entry for map_ingcs will be useful too.

@manthey manthey mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2016
@aashish24
Copy link
Member

thanks @manthey

@manthey manthey merged commit e5a2d57 into master Dec 13, 2016
@manthey manthey deleted the annotation-gcs branch December 13, 2016 13:14
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.

3 participants