[WIP] Support for different preference input types #32
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Based on #27, I've created a proposed solution without breaking backward compatibility for new input types.
Currently, there are only two types;
textbooleanWhich can be improved based on the changes @manuelvrhovac created in the PR mentioned. Also, additionally I added support for custom validators (two for now), which are type dependent and can be easily used on the item level.
@manuelvrhovac I would suggest checking this implementation (as this is an example of how we can simplify things), but with a new feature and idea you proposed. Let me know what you think.
Note
This is still WIP and should be discussed.