Opened on 03/29/2019 at 01:21:46 PM
Closed on 04/03/2019 at 07:29:25 PM
#7425 closed change (duplicate)
Remove specialization attribute from subscriptions.json
Reported by: | greiner | Assignee: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Unknown | Milestone: | |
Module: | Automation | Keywords: | |
Cc: | tlucas, sebastian | Blocked By: | #7091, #7371 |
Blocking: | Platform: | Unknown / Cross platform | |
Ready: | no | Confidential: | no |
Tester: | Unknown | Verified working: | no |
Review URL(s): |
Description (last modified by greiner)
Background
We stopped accessing the "specialization" attribute in subscriptions.xml in #7091 and instead rely on our own mapping. In #7371 we converted that file to JSON and also removed unused attributes from it. Therefore we can also remove the "specialization" attribute from that JSON after #7091 has made it into the extension.
What to change
Remove "specialization" attribute from data/subscriptions.json
Attachments (0)
Change History (13)
comment:1 Changed on 03/29/2019 at 01:22:35 PM by greiner
- Description modified (diff)
- Summary changed from Remove spezialization attribute from subscriptions.json to Remove specialization attribute from subscriptions.json
comment:2 Changed on 03/29/2019 at 09:43:23 PM by sebastian
- Cc sebastian added
I'm inclined to merge this into #7371. FWIW, we already removed author which is no longer used either, there as well.
comment:3 Changed on 04/01/2019 at 08:56:07 AM by tlucas
Already removing this in #7371 would significantly decrease the script's complexity - i'm also in favor of doing this right away. @greiner, would you agree? Can we already do this?
comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed on 04/01/2019 at 02:02:31 PM by greiner
As mentioned in the ticket description, we only stop depending on it after #7091 makes it into the extension which is not expected to happen anytime soon. Therefore we'd have to either rush it or extract the relevant changes from it and only rush those.
Neither way would be desirable for us since we already have two dependency updates lined up (see #7308 and #6936) but the latter approach would be feasible if you insist on it.
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed on 04/01/2019 at 04:05:45 PM by tlucas
Replying to greiner:
As mentioned in the ticket description, we only stop depending on it after #7091 makes it into the extension which is not expected to happen anytime soon. Therefore we'd have to either rush it or extract the relevant changes from it and only rush those.
Neither way would be desirable for us since we already have two dependency updates lined up (see #7308 and #6936) but the latter approach would be feasible if you insist on it.
I don't insist on it and i'm also fine with generating specialization for the time being - FWIW the generation is already done and working, so no extra work on my side.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed on 04/01/2019 at 05:31:15 PM by greiner
Replying to sebastian:
You have to adapt for #7371 (parsing JSON instead of XML) in adblockplusui anyway. Would it be a big deal to stop using specialization while doing so (independent of #7091)?
We have already made that change in #7091 and depending on when the next major release is going to happen, we may be able to include it already in that one. It'd be great if we could avoid a separate dependency update for it though. You're right that we have to make adjustments to stay compatible after the introduction of package.json anyway and that the change could be included in the same dependency update as that one.
So one way or another we'll end up with redundant work because either Core or UI code needs to be removed again after #7091 lands.
But as I said, if you insist on it, we can make that change.
Where is that value shown in the UI anyway?
It's used to represent the various language filter lists in the Language section of the options page's General tab because we decided against translating language names.
comment:8 Changed on 04/02/2019 at 01:56:28 AM by sebastian
Given #7091 is already merged, any reason to not include it in the dependency update that will include the changes adapting for #7371? I guess I'm not insisting but I fail to see the point of going to quite some length in order to preserve specialization with #7371, if it's matter to be removed (and the related changes already landed in some branch).
comment:9 Changed on 04/02/2019 at 10:41:17 AM by greiner
comment:10 Changed on 04/02/2019 at 03:05:18 PM by greiner
After further discussing this question with Winsley and considering that not having translations for the newly added string is not a regression, I think we can provide the requested change as part of #7431.
comment:11 follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed on 04/03/2019 at 12:25:28 AM by sebastian
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed on 04/03/2019 at 08:15:28 AM by greiner
Replying to sebastian:
Will that be the same dependency update where you adapt for using subscriptions.json instead of subscriptions.xml?
The scope of compatibility releases is not determined by us but by Platform and Core changes since those releases only exist to stay compatible with both of them. But yes, that's how I'd go about it.
The font generation tool was first introduced in that UI release (i.e. release-2018-5) but we only started using it for the one after that (i.e. release-2019-1). Therefore it's worth noting but not relevant for #6936.
comment:13 Changed on 04/03/2019 at 07:29:25 PM by sebastian
- Resolution set to duplicate
- Status changed from new to closed
Cool, so we can go ahead, and merge this into #7371 then.
Fixed typo.