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

To be discussed: Do we need pretty name for feature group? #32

Open
danielmuellerma opened this issue Jun 14, 2019 · 8 comments
Open

To be discussed: Do we need pretty name for feature group? #32

danielmuellerma opened this issue Jun 14, 2019 · 8 comments

Comments

@danielmuellerma
Copy link
Contributor

Feature Group has xml attribute "Pretty" - but pretty for feature groups is not defined in Appendix B.
We should either define pretty names for feature groups in Appendix B or remove xml attribute "Pretty".
Feature does not have xml attribute "Pretty".

@petrvanekrobe
Copy link
Contributor

petrvanekrobe commented Jun 14, 2019

The whole "pretty" concept is not explained anywhere.

@AndriiVoitenko
Copy link

@petrvanekrobe the meaning is the same as Short name in Fixture Type. But you are right, we should change description of pretty name xml attribute, "The pretty name of the attribute ." - explains nothing.

@petrvanekrobe petrvanekrobe transferred this issue from another repository Nov 5, 2020
@petrvanekrobe petrvanekrobe added this to the Version 1.2 milestone Nov 5, 2020
@petrvanekrobe
Copy link
Contributor

As discussed before the winter break, i added human aimed label to each attribute, it is in the Attributes with extended description branch, original PR: #122

This commit: 0d2423f

I did as little editorializing as possible. @moritzstaffel i think this is ready to be used in the Builder to provide a bit better label for the user.

@moritzstaffel
Copy link
Contributor

@petrvanekrobe I will have a look. Should I take care about getting this branch #122 into the main

@petrvanekrobe
Copy link
Contributor

I can get that in. We could also merge in the Wireshark dissector and the MVR schema, what do you think?

@moritzstaffel
Copy link
Contributor

I think this is a good thing!

@Verschwiegener
Copy link
Contributor

Isn't the Pretty Attribute used as the Display Name (The name that gets rendered in the UI) of the Attribute?

@petrvanekrobe
Copy link
Contributor

@Verschwiegener yes, that is often the case.

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

No branches or pull requests

5 participants