Skip to content

Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() - #99

Closed
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom
eliminate-layout-container-div
Closed

Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id()#99
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom
eliminate-layout-container-div

Conversation

@rpkyle

@rpkylerpkyle commented Jun 25, 2019•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR proposes to 🔪 these Dash for R elements, which do not exist in Dash for Python:

  • layout_container_id()
  • welcome_page()
  • is.layout() -- this checked that is.component() returned TRUE, and that id == layout_container_id()

In addition, componentify() is renamed to validate_component(), which is somewhat clearer.

The primary motivation is to enforce parity with Dash for Python, and to properly expose the layout object to work with layout validation checks which are already in place.

@alexcjohnson

@rpkyle
rpkyle requested a review from alexcjohnsonJune 25, 2019 19:21
@rpkylerpkyle self-assigned this Jun 25, 2019
@rpkylerpkyle added the parity Modifications to improve parity across Dash implementations label Jun 25, 2019
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson reviewed Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
validate_component = function(x) {
if (is.component(x)) return(x)
if (all(vapply(x, is.component, logical(1)))) return(x)
stop("The layout must be a component or a collection of components", call. = FALSE)

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In python the error we get is:

dash.exceptions.NoLayoutException:
Layout must be a dash component or a function that returns a dash component.

As discussed on slack earlier, seems like the same holds in R, we can't have a list/collection here either. And if this is where you'd see the error if layout was given a function with an invalid return, I'd give exactly the same error message as in Python.

That has knock-on effects - so layout = function(...) { should turn into layout = function(value) {, and this whole validate_component might as well be 🔪 since it'll just be if (!is.component(x)) stop(...)

alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson reviewed Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
# @param component a component (should be a dependency)
validate_dependency <- function(layout_, dependency) {
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call. = FALSE)
if (!is.component(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a Dash component or collection of components", call. = FALSE)

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a case we can actually hit this stop? Doesn't the one in layout_render cover us?

@rpkylerpkyleJun 26, 2019•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble seeing where this gets tripped as well; this is leftover code from the early revisions of the package. I suspect it made more sense when we wrapped the layout in an htmlDiv and wanted to ensure the layout was a list.

Here I'm actively trying to avoid that, so it probably does make sense to 🔪 this.

@alexcjohnson

alexcjohnson commented Aug 13, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?

@rpkyle

rpkyle commented Aug 13, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?

Yes, I believe so:

dashR/R/utils.R

Lines 18 to 25 in fcfedcb

# layout is really a special type of component
is.layout<-function(x) {
is.component(x) && identical(x[["props"]][["id"]], layout_container_id())
}
layout_container_id<-function() {
"_dashR-layout-container"
}

...and also:

dashR/R/dash.R

Lines 950 to 951 in fcfedcb

validate_dependency<-function(layout_, dependency) {
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call.=FALSE)

But I think that ☝️ this is now redundant, and could be removed.

We did remove welcome_page() previously, however:

#96

@alexcjohnson

alexcjohnson commented Aug 13, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I notice this PR is also targeting a somewhat old branch, so perhaps it would be best to pluck the still-relevant pieces of this PR into a new branch, make a new PR, and close this one? Your call how to manage it, but it would be nice to wrap this up before it gets even more stale.

@rpkyle

rpkyle commented Aug 13, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

I'll do that as soon as #111 is resolved.

@rpkylerpkyle mentioned this pull request Aug 23, 2019
Closed
@rpkyle

rpkyle commented Aug 23, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

This PR has become stale, opening another which addresses the issues that remain and which are now summarized in #120.

@rpkylerpkyle closed this Aug 23, 2019
@rpkyle
rpkyle deleted the eliminate-layout-container-div branch August 23, 2019 13:41
@rpkylerpkyle mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2019
Closed
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonalexcjohnson left review comments

Assignees

@rpkylerpkyle

Labels

parityModifications to improve parity across Dash implementations

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@rpkyle@alexcjohnson
, '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" + '
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() by rpkyle · Pull Request #99 · plotly/dashR · GitHub
Skip to content
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() - #99
Closed
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Closed
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id()#99
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Conversation
@rpkyle
@rpkylerpkyle
commented
Jun 25, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
This PR proposes to 🔪 these Dash for R elements, which do not exist in Dash for Python:
  • layout_container_id()
  • welcome_page()
  • is.layout() -- this checked that is.component() returned TRUE, and that id == layout_container_id()
In addition, componentify() is renamed to validate_component(), which is somewhat clearer.
The primary motivation is to enforce parity with Dash for Python, and to properly expose the layout object to work with layout validation checks which are already in place.
@alexcjohnson
@rpkyle
rpkyle
requested a review
from alexcjohnsonJune 25, 2019 19:21
@rpkylerpkyle
self-assigned this
Jun 25, 2019
@rpkylerpkyle
added
the 
parity
Modifications to improve parity across Dash implementations
label
Jun 25, 2019
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
validate_component = function(x) {
 if (is.component(x)) return(x)
 if (all(vapply(x, is.component, logical(1)))) return(x)
 stop("The layout must be a component or a collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In python the error we get is:
dash.exceptions.NoLayoutException:
Layout must be a dash component or a function that returns a dash component.

As discussed on slack earlier, seems like the same holds in R, we can't have a list/collection here either. And if this is where you'd see the error if layout was given a function with an invalid return, I'd give exactly the same error message as in Python.
That has knock-on effects - so layout = function(...) { should turn into layout = function(value) {, and this whole validate_component might as well be 🔪 since it'll just be if (!is.component(x)) stop(...)
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
# @param component a component (should be a dependency)
validate_dependency <- function(layout_, dependency) {
 if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call. = FALSE)
 if (!is.component(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a Dash component or collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a case we can actually hit this stop? Doesn't the one in layout_render cover us?
@rpkylerpkyleJun 26, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble seeing where this gets tripped as well; this is leftover code from the early revisions of the package. I suspect it made more sense when we wrapped the layout in an htmlDiv and wanted to ensure the layout was a list.
Here I'm actively trying to avoid that, so it probably does make sense to 🔪 this.
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
Yes, I believe so:
dashR/R/utils.R

Lines 18 to 25
in
fcfedcb
# layout is really a special type of component
is.layout<-function(x) { 
 is.component(x) && identical(x[["props"]][["id"]], layout_container_id()) 
 } 
layout_container_id<-function() { 
"_dashR-layout-container"
 } 
...and also:
dashR/R/dash.R

Lines 950 to 951
in
fcfedcb
validate_dependency<-function(layout_, dependency) { 
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call.=FALSE) 
But I think that ☝️ this is now redundant, and could be removed.
We did remove welcome_page() previously, however:
#96
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I notice this PR is also targeting a somewhat old branch, so perhaps it would be best to pluck the still-relevant pieces of this PR into a new branch, make a new PR, and close this one? Your call how to manage it, but it would be nice to wrap this up before it gets even more stale.
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
I'll do that as soon as #111 is resolved.
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Aug 23, 2019

Closed

@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 23, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
This PR has become stale, opening another which addresses the issues that remain and which are now summarized in #120.
@rpkylerpkyle
closed this
Aug 23, 2019
@rpkyle
rpkyle
deleted the

eliminate-layout-container-div

branch
August 23, 2019 13:41
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Sep 5, 2019

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonalexcjohnson left review comments

Assignees

@rpkylerpkyle

Labels

parityModifications to improve parity across Dash implementations

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@rpkyle@alexcjohnson

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() by rpkyle · Pull Request #99 · plotly/dashR · GitHub
Skip to content
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() - #99
Closed
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Closed
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id()#99
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Conversation
@rpkyle
@rpkylerpkyle
commented
Jun 25, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
This PR proposes to 🔪 these Dash for R elements, which do not exist in Dash for Python:
  • layout_container_id()
  • welcome_page()
  • is.layout() -- this checked that is.component() returned TRUE, and that id == layout_container_id()
In addition, componentify() is renamed to validate_component(), which is somewhat clearer.
The primary motivation is to enforce parity with Dash for Python, and to properly expose the layout object to work with layout validation checks which are already in place.
@alexcjohnson
@rpkyle
rpkyle
requested a review
from alexcjohnsonJune 25, 2019 19:21
@rpkylerpkyle
self-assigned this
Jun 25, 2019
@rpkylerpkyle
added
the 
parity
Modifications to improve parity across Dash implementations
label
Jun 25, 2019
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
validate_component = function(x) {
 if (is.component(x)) return(x)
 if (all(vapply(x, is.component, logical(1)))) return(x)
 stop("The layout must be a component or a collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In python the error we get is:
dash.exceptions.NoLayoutException:
Layout must be a dash component or a function that returns a dash component.

As discussed on slack earlier, seems like the same holds in R, we can't have a list/collection here either. And if this is where you'd see the error if layout was given a function with an invalid return, I'd give exactly the same error message as in Python.
That has knock-on effects - so layout = function(...) { should turn into layout = function(value) {, and this whole validate_component might as well be 🔪 since it'll just be if (!is.component(x)) stop(...)
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
# @param component a component (should be a dependency)
validate_dependency <- function(layout_, dependency) {
 if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call. = FALSE)
 if (!is.component(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a Dash component or collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a case we can actually hit this stop? Doesn't the one in layout_render cover us?
@rpkylerpkyleJun 26, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble seeing where this gets tripped as well; this is leftover code from the early revisions of the package. I suspect it made more sense when we wrapped the layout in an htmlDiv and wanted to ensure the layout was a list.
Here I'm actively trying to avoid that, so it probably does make sense to 🔪 this.
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
Yes, I believe so:
dashR/R/utils.R

Lines 18 to 25
in
fcfedcb
# layout is really a special type of component
is.layout<-function(x) { 
 is.component(x) && identical(x[["props"]][["id"]], layout_container_id()) 
 } 
layout_container_id<-function() { 
"_dashR-layout-container"
 } 
...and also:
dashR/R/dash.R

Lines 950 to 951
in
fcfedcb
validate_dependency<-function(layout_, dependency) { 
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call.=FALSE) 
But I think that ☝️ this is now redundant, and could be removed.
We did remove welcome_page() previously, however:
#96
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I notice this PR is also targeting a somewhat old branch, so perhaps it would be best to pluck the still-relevant pieces of this PR into a new branch, make a new PR, and close this one? Your call how to manage it, but it would be nice to wrap this up before it gets even more stale.
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
I'll do that as soon as #111 is resolved.
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Aug 23, 2019

Closed

@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 23, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
This PR has become stale, opening another which addresses the issues that remain and which are now summarized in #120.
@rpkylerpkyle
closed this
Aug 23, 2019
@rpkyle
rpkyle
deleted the

eliminate-layout-container-div

branch
August 23, 2019 13:41
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Sep 5, 2019

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonalexcjohnson left review comments

Assignees

@rpkylerpkyle

Labels

parityModifications to improve parity across Dash implementations

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@rpkyle@alexcjohnson

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() by rpkyle · Pull Request #99 · plotly/dashR · GitHub
Skip to content
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() - #99
Closed
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Closed
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id()#99
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Conversation
@rpkyle
@rpkylerpkyle
commented
Jun 25, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
This PR proposes to 🔪 these Dash for R elements, which do not exist in Dash for Python:
  • layout_container_id()
  • welcome_page()
  • is.layout() -- this checked that is.component() returned TRUE, and that id == layout_container_id()
In addition, componentify() is renamed to validate_component(), which is somewhat clearer.
The primary motivation is to enforce parity with Dash for Python, and to properly expose the layout object to work with layout validation checks which are already in place.
@alexcjohnson
@rpkyle
rpkyle
requested a review
from alexcjohnsonJune 25, 2019 19:21
@rpkylerpkyle
self-assigned this
Jun 25, 2019
@rpkylerpkyle
added
the 
parity
Modifications to improve parity across Dash implementations
label
Jun 25, 2019
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
validate_component = function(x) {
 if (is.component(x)) return(x)
 if (all(vapply(x, is.component, logical(1)))) return(x)
 stop("The layout must be a component or a collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In python the error we get is:
dash.exceptions.NoLayoutException:
Layout must be a dash component or a function that returns a dash component.

As discussed on slack earlier, seems like the same holds in R, we can't have a list/collection here either. And if this is where you'd see the error if layout was given a function with an invalid return, I'd give exactly the same error message as in Python.
That has knock-on effects - so layout = function(...) { should turn into layout = function(value) {, and this whole validate_component might as well be 🔪 since it'll just be if (!is.component(x)) stop(...)
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
# @param component a component (should be a dependency)
validate_dependency <- function(layout_, dependency) {
 if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call. = FALSE)
 if (!is.component(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a Dash component or collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a case we can actually hit this stop? Doesn't the one in layout_render cover us?
@rpkylerpkyleJun 26, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble seeing where this gets tripped as well; this is leftover code from the early revisions of the package. I suspect it made more sense when we wrapped the layout in an htmlDiv and wanted to ensure the layout was a list.
Here I'm actively trying to avoid that, so it probably does make sense to 🔪 this.
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
Yes, I believe so:
dashR/R/utils.R

Lines 18 to 25
in
fcfedcb
# layout is really a special type of component
is.layout<-function(x) { 
 is.component(x) && identical(x[["props"]][["id"]], layout_container_id()) 
 } 
layout_container_id<-function() { 
"_dashR-layout-container"
 } 
...and also:
dashR/R/dash.R

Lines 950 to 951
in
fcfedcb
validate_dependency<-function(layout_, dependency) { 
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call.=FALSE) 
But I think that ☝️ this is now redundant, and could be removed.
We did remove welcome_page() previously, however:
#96
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I notice this PR is also targeting a somewhat old branch, so perhaps it would be best to pluck the still-relevant pieces of this PR into a new branch, make a new PR, and close this one? Your call how to manage it, but it would be nice to wrap this up before it gets even more stale.
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
I'll do that as soon as #111 is resolved.
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Aug 23, 2019

Closed

@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 23, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
This PR has become stale, opening another which addresses the issues that remain and which are now summarized in #120.
@rpkylerpkyle
closed this
Aug 23, 2019
@rpkyle
rpkyle
deleted the

eliminate-layout-container-div

branch
August 23, 2019 13:41
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Sep 5, 2019

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonalexcjohnson left review comments

Assignees

@rpkylerpkyle

Labels

parityModifications to improve parity across Dash implementations

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@rpkyle@alexcjohnson

, '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" + '
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() by rpkyle · Pull Request #99 · plotly/dashR · GitHub
Skip to content
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() - #99
Closed
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Closed
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id()#99
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Conversation
@rpkyle
@rpkylerpkyle
commented
Jun 25, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
This PR proposes to 🔪 these Dash for R elements, which do not exist in Dash for Python:
  • layout_container_id()
  • welcome_page()
  • is.layout() -- this checked that is.component() returned TRUE, and that id == layout_container_id()
In addition, componentify() is renamed to validate_component(), which is somewhat clearer.
The primary motivation is to enforce parity with Dash for Python, and to properly expose the layout object to work with layout validation checks which are already in place.
@alexcjohnson
@rpkyle
rpkyle
requested a review
from alexcjohnsonJune 25, 2019 19:21
@rpkylerpkyle
self-assigned this
Jun 25, 2019
@rpkylerpkyle
added
the 
parity
Modifications to improve parity across Dash implementations
label
Jun 25, 2019
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
validate_component = function(x) {
 if (is.component(x)) return(x)
 if (all(vapply(x, is.component, logical(1)))) return(x)
 stop("The layout must be a component or a collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In python the error we get is:
dash.exceptions.NoLayoutException:
Layout must be a dash component or a function that returns a dash component.

As discussed on slack earlier, seems like the same holds in R, we can't have a list/collection here either. And if this is where you'd see the error if layout was given a function with an invalid return, I'd give exactly the same error message as in Python.
That has knock-on effects - so layout = function(...) { should turn into layout = function(value) {, and this whole validate_component might as well be 🔪 since it'll just be if (!is.component(x)) stop(...)
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
# @param component a component (should be a dependency)
validate_dependency <- function(layout_, dependency) {
 if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call. = FALSE)
 if (!is.component(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a Dash component or collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a case we can actually hit this stop? Doesn't the one in layout_render cover us?
@rpkylerpkyleJun 26, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble seeing where this gets tripped as well; this is leftover code from the early revisions of the package. I suspect it made more sense when we wrapped the layout in an htmlDiv and wanted to ensure the layout was a list.
Here I'm actively trying to avoid that, so it probably does make sense to 🔪 this.
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
Yes, I believe so:
dashR/R/utils.R

Lines 18 to 25
in
fcfedcb
# layout is really a special type of component
is.layout<-function(x) { 
 is.component(x) && identical(x[["props"]][["id"]], layout_container_id()) 
 } 
layout_container_id<-function() { 
"_dashR-layout-container"
 } 
...and also:
dashR/R/dash.R

Lines 950 to 951
in
fcfedcb
validate_dependency<-function(layout_, dependency) { 
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call.=FALSE) 
But I think that ☝️ this is now redundant, and could be removed.
We did remove welcome_page() previously, however:
#96
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I notice this PR is also targeting a somewhat old branch, so perhaps it would be best to pluck the still-relevant pieces of this PR into a new branch, make a new PR, and close this one? Your call how to manage it, but it would be nice to wrap this up before it gets even more stale.
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
I'll do that as soon as #111 is resolved.
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Aug 23, 2019

Closed

@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 23, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
This PR has become stale, opening another which addresses the issues that remain and which are now summarized in #120.
@rpkylerpkyle
closed this
Aug 23, 2019
@rpkyle
rpkyle
deleted the

eliminate-layout-container-div

branch
August 23, 2019 13:41
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Sep 5, 2019

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonalexcjohnson left review comments

Assignees

@rpkylerpkyle

Labels

parityModifications to improve parity across Dash implementations

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@rpkyle@alexcjohnson

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() by rpkyle · Pull Request #99 · plotly/dashR · GitHub
Skip to content
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() - #99
Closed
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Closed
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id()#99
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Conversation
@rpkyle
@rpkylerpkyle
commented
Jun 25, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
This PR proposes to 🔪 these Dash for R elements, which do not exist in Dash for Python:
  • layout_container_id()
  • welcome_page()
  • is.layout() -- this checked that is.component() returned TRUE, and that id == layout_container_id()
In addition, componentify() is renamed to validate_component(), which is somewhat clearer.
The primary motivation is to enforce parity with Dash for Python, and to properly expose the layout object to work with layout validation checks which are already in place.
@alexcjohnson
@rpkyle
rpkyle
requested a review
from alexcjohnsonJune 25, 2019 19:21
@rpkylerpkyle
self-assigned this
Jun 25, 2019
@rpkylerpkyle
added
the 
parity
Modifications to improve parity across Dash implementations
label
Jun 25, 2019
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
validate_component = function(x) {
 if (is.component(x)) return(x)
 if (all(vapply(x, is.component, logical(1)))) return(x)
 stop("The layout must be a component or a collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In python the error we get is:
dash.exceptions.NoLayoutException:
Layout must be a dash component or a function that returns a dash component.

As discussed on slack earlier, seems like the same holds in R, we can't have a list/collection here either. And if this is where you'd see the error if layout was given a function with an invalid return, I'd give exactly the same error message as in Python.
That has knock-on effects - so layout = function(...) { should turn into layout = function(value) {, and this whole validate_component might as well be 🔪 since it'll just be if (!is.component(x)) stop(...)
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
# @param component a component (should be a dependency)
validate_dependency <- function(layout_, dependency) {
 if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call. = FALSE)
 if (!is.component(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a Dash component or collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a case we can actually hit this stop? Doesn't the one in layout_render cover us?
@rpkylerpkyleJun 26, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble seeing where this gets tripped as well; this is leftover code from the early revisions of the package. I suspect it made more sense when we wrapped the layout in an htmlDiv and wanted to ensure the layout was a list.
Here I'm actively trying to avoid that, so it probably does make sense to 🔪 this.
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
Yes, I believe so:
dashR/R/utils.R

Lines 18 to 25
in
fcfedcb
# layout is really a special type of component
is.layout<-function(x) { 
 is.component(x) && identical(x[["props"]][["id"]], layout_container_id()) 
 } 
layout_container_id<-function() { 
"_dashR-layout-container"
 } 
...and also:
dashR/R/dash.R

Lines 950 to 951
in
fcfedcb
validate_dependency<-function(layout_, dependency) { 
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call.=FALSE) 
But I think that ☝️ this is now redundant, and could be removed.
We did remove welcome_page() previously, however:
#96
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I notice this PR is also targeting a somewhat old branch, so perhaps it would be best to pluck the still-relevant pieces of this PR into a new branch, make a new PR, and close this one? Your call how to manage it, but it would be nice to wrap this up before it gets even more stale.
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
I'll do that as soon as #111 is resolved.
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Aug 23, 2019

Closed

@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 23, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
This PR has become stale, opening another which addresses the issues that remain and which are now summarized in #120.
@rpkylerpkyle
closed this
Aug 23, 2019
@rpkyle
rpkyle
deleted the

eliminate-layout-container-div

branch
August 23, 2019 13:41
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Sep 5, 2019

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonalexcjohnson left review comments

Assignees

@rpkylerpkyle

Labels

parityModifications to improve parity across Dash implementations

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@rpkyle@alexcjohnson

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() by rpkyle · Pull Request #99 · plotly/dashR · GitHub
Skip to content
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() - #99
Closed
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Closed
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id()#99
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Conversation
@rpkyle
@rpkylerpkyle
commented
Jun 25, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
This PR proposes to 🔪 these Dash for R elements, which do not exist in Dash for Python:
  • layout_container_id()
  • welcome_page()
  • is.layout() -- this checked that is.component() returned TRUE, and that id == layout_container_id()
In addition, componentify() is renamed to validate_component(), which is somewhat clearer.
The primary motivation is to enforce parity with Dash for Python, and to properly expose the layout object to work with layout validation checks which are already in place.
@alexcjohnson
@rpkyle
rpkyle
requested a review
from alexcjohnsonJune 25, 2019 19:21
@rpkylerpkyle
self-assigned this
Jun 25, 2019
@rpkylerpkyle
added
the 
parity
Modifications to improve parity across Dash implementations
label
Jun 25, 2019
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
validate_component = function(x) {
 if (is.component(x)) return(x)
 if (all(vapply(x, is.component, logical(1)))) return(x)
 stop("The layout must be a component or a collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In python the error we get is:
dash.exceptions.NoLayoutException:
Layout must be a dash component or a function that returns a dash component.

As discussed on slack earlier, seems like the same holds in R, we can't have a list/collection here either. And if this is where you'd see the error if layout was given a function with an invalid return, I'd give exactly the same error message as in Python.
That has knock-on effects - so layout = function(...) { should turn into layout = function(value) {, and this whole validate_component might as well be 🔪 since it'll just be if (!is.component(x)) stop(...)
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
# @param component a component (should be a dependency)
validate_dependency <- function(layout_, dependency) {
 if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call. = FALSE)
 if (!is.component(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a Dash component or collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a case we can actually hit this stop? Doesn't the one in layout_render cover us?
@rpkylerpkyleJun 26, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble seeing where this gets tripped as well; this is leftover code from the early revisions of the package. I suspect it made more sense when we wrapped the layout in an htmlDiv and wanted to ensure the layout was a list.
Here I'm actively trying to avoid that, so it probably does make sense to 🔪 this.
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
Yes, I believe so:
dashR/R/utils.R

Lines 18 to 25
in
fcfedcb
# layout is really a special type of component
is.layout<-function(x) { 
 is.component(x) && identical(x[["props"]][["id"]], layout_container_id()) 
 } 
layout_container_id<-function() { 
"_dashR-layout-container"
 } 
...and also:
dashR/R/dash.R

Lines 950 to 951
in
fcfedcb
validate_dependency<-function(layout_, dependency) { 
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call.=FALSE) 
But I think that ☝️ this is now redundant, and could be removed.
We did remove welcome_page() previously, however:
#96
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I notice this PR is also targeting a somewhat old branch, so perhaps it would be best to pluck the still-relevant pieces of this PR into a new branch, make a new PR, and close this one? Your call how to manage it, but it would be nice to wrap this up before it gets even more stale.
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
I'll do that as soon as #111 is resolved.
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Aug 23, 2019

Closed

@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 23, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
This PR has become stale, opening another which addresses the issues that remain and which are now summarized in #120.
@rpkylerpkyle
closed this
Aug 23, 2019
@rpkyle
rpkyle
deleted the

eliminate-layout-container-div

branch
August 23, 2019 13:41
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Sep 5, 2019

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonalexcjohnson left review comments

Assignees

@rpkylerpkyle

Labels

parityModifications to improve parity across Dash implementations

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@rpkyle@alexcjohnson

, '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); }
})();
})();
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() by rpkyle · Pull Request #99 · plotly/dashR · GitHub
Skip to content
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id() - #99
Closed
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Closed
Remove welcome_page() and layout_container_id()#99
rpkyle wants to merge 3 commits into
0.1.0-cranfrom 
eliminate-layout-container-div
Conversation
@rpkyle
@rpkylerpkyle
commented
Jun 25, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
This PR proposes to 🔪 these Dash for R elements, which do not exist in Dash for Python:
  • layout_container_id()
  • welcome_page()
  • is.layout() -- this checked that is.component() returned TRUE, and that id == layout_container_id()
In addition, componentify() is renamed to validate_component(), which is somewhat clearer.
The primary motivation is to enforce parity with Dash for Python, and to properly expose the layout object to work with layout validation checks which are already in place.
@alexcjohnson
@rpkyle
rpkyle
requested a review
from alexcjohnsonJune 25, 2019 19:21
@rpkylerpkyle
self-assigned this
Jun 25, 2019
@rpkylerpkyle
added
the 
parity
Modifications to improve parity across Dash implementations
label
Jun 25, 2019
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
validate_component = function(x) {
 if (is.component(x)) return(x)
 if (all(vapply(x, is.component, logical(1)))) return(x)
 stop("The layout must be a component or a collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In python the error we get is:
dash.exceptions.NoLayoutException:
Layout must be a dash component or a function that returns a dash component.

As discussed on slack earlier, seems like the same holds in R, we can't have a list/collection here either. And if this is where you'd see the error if layout was given a function with an invalid return, I'd give exactly the same error message as in Python.
That has knock-on effects - so layout = function(...) { should turn into layout = function(value) {, and this whole validate_component might as well be 🔪 since it'll just be if (!is.component(x)) stop(...)
alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
reviewed
Jun 25, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadR/dash.R
# @param component a component (should be a dependency)
validate_dependency <- function(layout_, dependency) {
 if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call. = FALSE)
 if (!is.component(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a Dash component or collection of components", call. = FALSE)
@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonJun 25, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a case we can actually hit this stop? Doesn't the one in layout_render cover us?
@rpkylerpkyleJun 26, 2019•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble seeing where this gets tripped as well; this is leftover code from the early revisions of the package. I suspect it made more sense when we wrapped the layout in an htmlDiv and wanted to ensure the layout was a list.
Here I'm actively trying to avoid that, so it probably does make sense to 🔪 this.
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@rpkyle is this PR still relevant?
Yes, I believe so:
dashR/R/utils.R

Lines 18 to 25
in
fcfedcb
# layout is really a special type of component
is.layout<-function(x) { 
 is.component(x) && identical(x[["props"]][["id"]], layout_container_id()) 
 } 
layout_container_id<-function() { 
"_dashR-layout-container"
 } 
...and also:
dashR/R/dash.R

Lines 950 to 951
in
fcfedcb
validate_dependency<-function(layout_, dependency) { 
if (!is.layout(layout_)) stop("`layout` must be a dash layout object", call.=FALSE) 
But I think that ☝️ this is now redundant, and could be removed.
We did remove welcome_page() previously, however:
#96
@alexcjohnson
alexcjohnson
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I notice this PR is also targeting a somewhat old branch, so perhaps it would be best to pluck the still-relevant pieces of this PR into a new branch, make a new PR, and close this one? Your call how to manage it, but it would be nice to wrap this up before it gets even more stale.
@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 13, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
I'll do that as soon as #111 is resolved.
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Aug 23, 2019

Closed

@rpkyle
rpkyle
commented
Aug 23, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
This PR has become stale, opening another which addresses the issues that remain and which are now summarized in #120.
@rpkylerpkyle
closed this
Aug 23, 2019
@rpkyle
rpkyle
deleted the

eliminate-layout-container-div

branch
August 23, 2019 13:41
@rpkylerpkyle
mentioned this pull request
Sep 5, 2019

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alexcjohnsonalexcjohnsonalexcjohnson left review comments

Assignees

@rpkylerpkyle

Labels

parityModifications to improve parity across Dash implementations

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@rpkyle@alexcjohnson