Skip to content

[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation #36

Open
Open
[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation#36

Description

@iamer
iamer
opened on Jan 19, 2012

Timeboxed to 10 hours

Design a way for participants to declare which fields and parameters they expect in their workitems, as well as constraints on their values (such as type, element type, string-matches-regexp, string-in-enum, that kind of thing).

Design considerations:

  • The declarations should be in the participants, so that people will
    actually update them as the participant changes
  • The Exo should guarantee that the constraints are met before the
    participant gets the workitem.
  • The declarations should be passive data structures, so that they
    can be processed without running participant-specific code.
  • The syntax should support concepts like "integer as string" and
    "list as string" because ruote often passes stringified parameters
    like that.

Possibilities:

  • Declaring optional parameters may be useful for documentation,
    and allows typechecking on those parameters
  • Declaring output fields may be helpful in the future for
    automated checking of compatibility between participants
  • It may be possible to generate documentation from these declarations,
    but don't let that complicate the basic design.
  • Alternately, it may be possible parse the declarations from the docstring.

The output of this task should be a document describing the
syntax and suggested implementation, ready for discussion.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation · Issue #36 · MeeGoIntegration/Issues · GitHub
      Skip to content
      [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation #36
      Open
      Open
      [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation#36
      Description
      @iamer
      iamer
      opened on Jan 19, 2012
      Timeboxed to 10 hours
      Design a way for participants to declare which fields and parameters they expect in their workitems, as well as constraints on their values (such as type, element type, string-matches-regexp, string-in-enum, that kind of thing).
      Design considerations:
      • The declarations should be in the participants, so that people will
        
actually update them as the participant changes
      • The Exo should guarantee that the constraints are met before the
        
participant gets the workitem.
      • The declarations should be passive data structures, so that they
        
can be processed without running participant-specific code.
      • The syntax should support concepts like "integer as string" and
        
"list as string" because ruote often passes stringified parameters
        
like that.
      Possibilities:
      • Declaring optional parameters may be useful for documentation,
        
and allows typechecking on those parameters
      • Declaring output fields may be helpful in the future for
        
automated checking of compatibility between participants
      • It may be possible to generate documentation from these declarations,
        
but don't let that complicate the basic design.
      • Alternately, it may be possible parse the declarations from the docstring.
      The output of this task should be a document describing the
      
syntax and suggested implementation, ready for discussion.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation · Issue #36 · MeeGoIntegration/Issues · GitHub
          Skip to content
          [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation #36
          Open
          Open
          [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation#36
          Description
          @iamer
          iamer
          opened on Jan 19, 2012
          Timeboxed to 10 hours
          Design a way for participants to declare which fields and parameters they expect in their workitems, as well as constraints on their values (such as type, element type, string-matches-regexp, string-in-enum, that kind of thing).
          Design considerations:
          • The declarations should be in the participants, so that people will
            
actually update them as the participant changes
          • The Exo should guarantee that the constraints are met before the
            
participant gets the workitem.
          • The declarations should be passive data structures, so that they
            
can be processed without running participant-specific code.
          • The syntax should support concepts like "integer as string" and
            
"list as string" because ruote often passes stringified parameters
            
like that.
          Possibilities:
          • Declaring optional parameters may be useful for documentation,
            
and allows typechecking on those parameters
          • Declaring output fields may be helpful in the future for
            
automated checking of compatibility between participants
          • It may be possible to generate documentation from these declarations,
            
but don't let that complicate the basic design.
          • Alternately, it may be possible parse the declarations from the docstring.
          The output of this task should be a document describing the
          
syntax and suggested implementation, ready for discussion.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation · Issue #36 · MeeGoIntegration/Issues · GitHub
              Skip to content
              [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation #36
              Open
              Open
              [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation#36
              Description
              @iamer
              iamer
              opened on Jan 19, 2012
              Timeboxed to 10 hours
              Design a way for participants to declare which fields and parameters they expect in their workitems, as well as constraints on their values (such as type, element type, string-matches-regexp, string-in-enum, that kind of thing).
              Design considerations:
              • The declarations should be in the participants, so that people will
                
actually update them as the participant changes
              • The Exo should guarantee that the constraints are met before the
                
participant gets the workitem.
              • The declarations should be passive data structures, so that they
                
can be processed without running participant-specific code.
              • The syntax should support concepts like "integer as string" and
                
"list as string" because ruote often passes stringified parameters
                
like that.
              Possibilities:
              • Declaring optional parameters may be useful for documentation,
                
and allows typechecking on those parameters
              • Declaring output fields may be helpful in the future for
                
automated checking of compatibility between participants
              • It may be possible to generate documentation from these declarations,
                
but don't let that complicate the basic design.
              • Alternately, it may be possible parse the declarations from the docstring.
              The output of this task should be a document describing the
              
syntax and suggested implementation, ready for discussion.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation · Issue #36 · MeeGoIntegration/Issues · GitHub
                  Skip to content
                  [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation #36
                  Open
                  Open
                  [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation#36
                  Description
                  @iamer
                  iamer
                  opened on Jan 19, 2012
                  Timeboxed to 10 hours
                  Design a way for participants to declare which fields and parameters they expect in their workitems, as well as constraints on their values (such as type, element type, string-matches-regexp, string-in-enum, that kind of thing).
                  Design considerations:
                  • The declarations should be in the participants, so that people will
                    
actually update them as the participant changes
                  • The Exo should guarantee that the constraints are met before the
                    
participant gets the workitem.
                  • The declarations should be passive data structures, so that they
                    
can be processed without running participant-specific code.
                  • The syntax should support concepts like "integer as string" and
                    
"list as string" because ruote often passes stringified parameters
                    
like that.
                  Possibilities:
                  • Declaring optional parameters may be useful for documentation,
                    
and allows typechecking on those parameters
                  • Declaring output fields may be helpful in the future for
                    
automated checking of compatibility between participants
                  • It may be possible to generate documentation from these declarations,
                    
but don't let that complicate the basic design.
                  • Alternately, it may be possible parse the declarations from the docstring.
                  The output of this task should be a document describing the
                  
syntax and suggested implementation, ready for discussion.
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    No labels
                    No labels
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation · Issue #36 · MeeGoIntegration/Issues · GitHub
                      Skip to content
                      [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation #36
                      Open
                      Open
                      [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation#36
                      Description
                      @iamer
                      iamer
                      opened on Jan 19, 2012
                      Timeboxed to 10 hours
                      Design a way for participants to declare which fields and parameters they expect in their workitems, as well as constraints on their values (such as type, element type, string-matches-regexp, string-in-enum, that kind of thing).
                      Design considerations:
                      • The declarations should be in the participants, so that people will
                        
actually update them as the participant changes
                      • The Exo should guarantee that the constraints are met before the
                        
participant gets the workitem.
                      • The declarations should be passive data structures, so that they
                        
can be processed without running participant-specific code.
                      • The syntax should support concepts like "integer as string" and
                        
"list as string" because ruote often passes stringified parameters
                        
like that.
                      Possibilities:
                      • Declaring optional parameters may be useful for documentation,
                        
and allows typechecking on those parameters
                      • Declaring output fields may be helpful in the future for
                        
automated checking of compatibility between participants
                      • It may be possible to generate documentation from these declarations,
                        
but don't let that complicate the basic design.
                      • Alternately, it may be possible parse the declarations from the docstring.
                      The output of this task should be a document describing the
                      
syntax and suggested implementation, ready for discussion.
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        No labels
                        No labels
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation · Issue #36 · MeeGoIntegration/Issues · GitHub
                          Skip to content
                          [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation #36
                          Open
                          Open
                          [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation#36
                          Description
                          @iamer
                          iamer
                          opened on Jan 19, 2012
                          Timeboxed to 10 hours
                          Design a way for participants to declare which fields and parameters they expect in their workitems, as well as constraints on their values (such as type, element type, string-matches-regexp, string-in-enum, that kind of thing).
                          Design considerations:
                          • The declarations should be in the participants, so that people will
                            
actually update them as the participant changes
                          • The Exo should guarantee that the constraints are met before the
                            
participant gets the workitem.
                          • The declarations should be passive data structures, so that they
                            
can be processed without running participant-specific code.
                          • The syntax should support concepts like "integer as string" and
                            
"list as string" because ruote often passes stringified parameters
                            
like that.
                          Possibilities:
                          • Declaring optional parameters may be useful for documentation,
                            
and allows typechecking on those parameters
                          • Declaring output fields may be helpful in the future for
                            
automated checking of compatibility between participants
                          • It may be possible to generate documentation from these declarations,
                            
but don't let that complicate the basic design.
                          • Alternately, it may be possible parse the declarations from the docstring.
                          The output of this task should be a document describing the
                          
syntax and suggested implementation, ready for discussion.
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            No labels
                            No labels
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
[TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation · Issue #36 · MeeGoIntegration/Issues · GitHub
                              Skip to content
                              [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation #36
                              Open
                              Open
                              [TASK] [CODE QUALITY] Design simple declarative syntax for workitem validation#36
                              Description
                              @iamer
                              iamer
                              opened on Jan 19, 2012
                              Timeboxed to 10 hours
                              Design a way for participants to declare which fields and parameters they expect in their workitems, as well as constraints on their values (such as type, element type, string-matches-regexp, string-in-enum, that kind of thing).
                              Design considerations:
                              • The declarations should be in the participants, so that people will
                                
actually update them as the participant changes
                              • The Exo should guarantee that the constraints are met before the
                                
participant gets the workitem.
                              • The declarations should be passive data structures, so that they
                                
can be processed without running participant-specific code.
                              • The syntax should support concepts like "integer as string" and
                                
"list as string" because ruote often passes stringified parameters
                                
like that.
                              Possibilities:
                              • Declaring optional parameters may be useful for documentation,
                                
and allows typechecking on those parameters
                              • Declaring output fields may be helpful in the future for
                                
automated checking of compatibility between participants
                              • It may be possible to generate documentation from these declarations,
                                
but don't let that complicate the basic design.
                              • Alternately, it may be possible parse the declarations from the docstring.
                              The output of this task should be a document describing the
                              
syntax and suggested implementation, ready for discussion.
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                No labels
                                No labels
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions