Re: [Python-Dev] [Idle-dev] KeyConfig, KeyBinding and other related issues.
Hi, I would like the keyseq validator to be reviewed. The diff file: https://gist.github.com/sahutd/0a471db8138383fd73b2#file-test-keyseq-diff A sample test runner file: https://gist.github.com/sahutd/0a471db8138383fd73b2#file-test-keyseq-runner-... In its current form, it supports/has modifiers = ['Shift', 'Control', 'Alt', 'Meta'] alpha_uppercase = ['A'] alpha_lowercase = ['a'] direction = ['Up',] direction_key = ['Key-Up'] It supports validating combinations upto 4 in length. Please test for the above set only. (It will extended easily to fully represent the respective complete sets. The reason it cant be done *now* is the due to how RE optionals are coded differently in my patch. See CLEANUP below). I will also add remaining keys like Backspace, Slash etc tomorrow. # Cleanup: If we decide to go ahead with RE validating keys as in the above patch, 0. I made the mistake of not coding RE optionals -> ((pat)|(pat)) same for all sets. The result is that, extending the current key set is not possible without making all RE optional patterns similar.(Read the starting lines of is_valid_keyseq method). 1. There is a lot of places where refactoring can be done and appropriate comment added. 2. I left the asserts as-is. They can be used in testing the validator method itself. 3. The above patch still needs support for Backspace, slash etc to be added. I decided to add, once I am sure we will use it. 4. I would like to know how it will affect Mac? What are system specific differences? Please run the test-runner script on it and do let me know. --- My friend told that this thing can be done by "defining a grammar and automata." I did read up about it, but found it hard to grasp everything. Can you say whether it would be easier to solve it that way than RE? Regards On 13 June 2014 17:15, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavheblikar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 June 2014 16:58, Tal Einat <taleinat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavheblikar@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a heads up to both: I am writing a keyseq validator method. It currently works for over 800 permutations of ['Shift', 'Control', 'Alt', 'Meta', 'Key-a', 'Key-A', 'Up', 'Key-Up', 'a', 'A']. It works for permutations of length 2 and 3. Beyond that its not worth it IMO. I am currently trying to integrate it with test_configuration.py and catching permutations i missed out.
I post this, so that we dont duplicate work. I hope it to be ready by the end of the day.(UTC +5.5)
What is the method you are using?
Regex. It is not something elegant. The permutations are coded in.(Not all 800+ obviously, but around 15-20 general ones.). The only advantage is it can be used without creating a new Tk instance.
What do you mean by "permutations"? If you mean what I think, then I'm not sure I agree with >3 not being worth it. I've used keyboard bindings with more than 2 modifiers before, and we should certainly support this properly.
I am sorry. I meant to write >3 modifier permutations. (i.eControl-Shift-Alt-Meta+Key-X is not covered. But Control-Shift-Alt-Key-X is.)
-- Regards Saimadhav Heblikar
-- Regards Saimadhav Heblikar
Apologies for the accidental cross post. I intended to send it to idle-dev. I am sorry again :( On 13 June 2014 20:11, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavheblikar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I would like the keyseq validator to be reviewed.
The diff file: https://gist.github.com/sahutd/0a471db8138383fd73b2#file-test-keyseq-diff A sample test runner file: https://gist.github.com/sahutd/0a471db8138383fd73b2#file-test-keyseq-runner-...
In its current form, it supports/has modifiers = ['Shift', 'Control', 'Alt', 'Meta'] alpha_uppercase = ['A'] alpha_lowercase = ['a'] direction = ['Up',] direction_key = ['Key-Up']
It supports validating combinations upto 4 in length.
Please test for the above set only. (It will extended easily to fully represent the respective complete sets. The reason it cant be done *now* is the due to how RE optionals are coded differently in my patch. See CLEANUP below). I will also add remaining keys like Backspace, Slash etc tomorrow.
# Cleanup: If we decide to go ahead with RE validating keys as in the above patch,
0. I made the mistake of not coding RE optionals -> ((pat)|(pat)) same for all sets. The result is that, extending the current key set is not possible without making all RE optional patterns similar.(Read the starting lines of is_valid_keyseq method).
1. There is a lot of places where refactoring can be done and appropriate comment added.
2. I left the asserts as-is. They can be used in testing the validator method itself.
3. The above patch still needs support for Backspace, slash etc to be added. I decided to add, once I am sure we will use it.
4. I would like to know how it will affect Mac? What are system specific differences? Please run the test-runner script on it and do let me know.
--- My friend told that this thing can be done by "defining a grammar and automata." I did read up about it, but found it hard to grasp everything. Can you say whether it would be easier to solve it that way than RE?
Regards
On 13 June 2014 17:15, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavheblikar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 June 2014 16:58, Tal Einat <taleinat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavheblikar@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a heads up to both: I am writing a keyseq validator method. It currently works for over 800 permutations of ['Shift', 'Control', 'Alt', 'Meta', 'Key-a', 'Key-A', 'Up', 'Key-Up', 'a', 'A']. It works for permutations of length 2 and 3. Beyond that its not worth it IMO. I am currently trying to integrate it with test_configuration.py and catching permutations i missed out.
I post this, so that we dont duplicate work. I hope it to be ready by the end of the day.(UTC +5.5)
What is the method you are using?
Regex. It is not something elegant. The permutations are coded in.(Not all 800+ obviously, but around 15-20 general ones.). The only advantage is it can be used without creating a new Tk instance.
What do you mean by "permutations"? If you mean what I think, then I'm not sure I agree with >3 not being worth it. I've used keyboard bindings with more than 2 modifiers before, and we should certainly support this properly.
I am sorry. I meant to write >3 modifier permutations. (i.eControl-Shift-Alt-Meta+Key-X is not covered. But Control-Shift-Alt-Key-X is.)
-- Regards Saimadhav Heblikar
-- Regards Saimadhav Heblikar
-- Regards Saimadhav Heblikar
participants (1)
-
Saimadhav Heblikar