> On May 30, 2013, 10:56 a.m., Matěj Laitl wrote: > > Looks good, although I've spotted last error: > > 1. add a normal sorting, e.g. Album > > 2. expand the leftmost arrow down, click Shuffle > > 3. the Album sorting is not reset (as it should be; other "normal" sorting > > items correctly reset the Album sorting) > > Konrad Zemek wrote: > Actually, this is not a bug; that's how I designed it. > > This is my very use-case: I have my playlist sorted by album at all > times, yet I like to shuffle tracks around (that's especially useful for my > various-artists albums). I feel that > a) my sorting choice should not be reset by shuffle action - this just > annoys me because I have to set my whole sorting path again, and > b) having shuffle action only under the leftmost arrow, I am given a hint > that it works on a more general scope, and having it separated from the > sorting levels I am given a hint that it works differently. > > These two lead me to the point, that is: although it may be surprising on > the first use (what isn't?), the GUI setup makes this behavior feel natural > or, at least, not awkward. And I feel that it's useful - it sure is for me. > So while I am not hell-bent on making it stay, I stand for my design choice. > :) > > Matěj Laitl wrote: > This is absolutely confusing, you also should have mentioned it in the > description instead of trying to pursue it without us knowing (despite me > explicitly suggesting the behaviour to rest the sorting). The UI must never > be inconsistent, at least never intentionally without proper rationale. > Clicking sorting button at level N must always replace existing sorting at > level N. Period. > > In this regard and your use-case, I actually think that something closer > to the original behaviour would be better: have Shuffle at each level. (so > that clicking on left-most would reset all levels, clicking on right-most > would do what you want for your use-case) > > The goal of Amarok is to be usable by "ordinary" users (think of your > girlfirend), I know that most of us came to it as scratching its own itch, > but we should really think about it becore introducing > $next_supper_witty_beahviour or $suboption_of_already_a_microption.
> This is absolutely confusing, you also should have mentioned it in the > description instead of trying to pursue it without us knowing (despite me > explicitly suggesting the behaviour to rest the sorting) Actually, this was natural enough to me, that I understood your "show Shuffle *only* under the leftmost arrow" suggestion as exactly this: show shuffle under the leftmost arrow, and make it not reset the state. Especially since you presented this option against "make Shuffle reset all sorting levels", which by contrast reassured me that we were thinking about the same thing. I wasn't trying to introduce a supper witty behavior behind anyone's back. That being said I understand perfectly what you're getting at here. I think that the behavior you described above is exactly how it should be, for consistency's sake. That's how I wanted it to be at the beginning, but as I noted above, I gravely misunderstood your suggestion. So sorry for the hassle, I'll get it fixed. - Konrad ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110658/#review33423 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 28, 2013, 9:01 p.m., Konrad Zemek wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110658/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 28, 2013, 9:01 p.m.) > > > Review request for Amarok. > > > Description > ------- > > Playlist sort widget: reimplement Shuffle "sort" as an action. > > Remove now-unnecessary Shuffle handlers in sort-related functions. > Additionally, PlaylistController::MoveRows has been modified to help with big > move actions (validation complexity reduced). > > GUI: In the playlist sort widget, the Shuffle menu entry is now separated > from other entries. Activating the entry no longer results in a "Shuffle" > sort level being added. > BUG: 320129 > FIXED-IN: 2.8 > > > Diffs > ----- > > ChangeLog 9dd0c3dfb9c2a275ef9796bce18f7c8ae7b39360 > src/playlist/PlaylistActions.h dee8793e5386d3a44c98698631f6e8dd13a7d62f > src/playlist/PlaylistActions.cpp 1decce7c3d7bef36f314b8abcc337064438a92e0 > src/playlist/PlaylistBreadcrumbItem.h > d6ff243d7b78358f3a943de9a345d694c613aec9 > src/playlist/PlaylistBreadcrumbItem.cpp > 59fc6d2a68d86e4d0cd4c1def343ac6973bc5965 > src/playlist/PlaylistBreadcrumbItemSortButton.h > c141597614ac40c3c4adaf212f3d46b9ff360293 > src/playlist/PlaylistBreadcrumbItemSortButton.cpp > 8bf861cfcd4234a0d34c3542b9fa806ce66454de > src/playlist/PlaylistBreadcrumbLevel.cpp > 185ebfbafcbc3ef8ca80d9fd9ae42b0663a59eca > src/playlist/PlaylistController.h 5047e473b7d236d5be5bd99342d8ed731913634b > src/playlist/PlaylistController.cpp > df293a994798299335aeeb3221e2231ecb357356 > src/playlist/PlaylistDefines.h 3e10b552f86b68946b6883b0ee49c226d83315f6 > src/playlist/PlaylistModel.cpp a562bdbf0789d23e5712223593d9e09de0e29520 > src/playlist/PlaylistSortWidget.cpp > 62f760cc6a201a67be65c80bf03ae696bd44444c > src/playlist/proxymodels/SortAlgorithms.h > 2eba6a7dd4c227f55d519083f9af9cf7b08f043d > src/playlist/proxymodels/SortAlgorithms.cpp > 47b468c99e37d3ff8b148704791c5058726ac812 > src/playlist/proxymodels/SortScheme.cpp > d29f9dec6b1c2ae555146853782819328ae192f0 > tests/playlist/TestPlaylistModels.h > 3751e6a2c3d56be1a6abcea742eec088e2a1123b > tests/playlist/TestPlaylistModels.cpp > ec8adb8f2c5bbb141f291989499e361d5a73381d > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110658/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Test added for the shuffle action. GUI tested manually. > > > Thanks, > > Konrad Zemek > >
_______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
