Skip to content

Remove bool flag for jump_to commands#3250

Open
exbluesbreaker wants to merge 1 commit into
f3d-app:masterfrom
exbluesbreaker:jump_to_frame_rework
Open

Remove bool flag for jump_to commands#3250
exbluesbreaker wants to merge 1 commit into
f3d-app:masterfrom
exbluesbreaker:jump_to_frame_rework

Conversation

@exbluesbreaker

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Describe your changes

Issue ticket number and link if any

Checklist for finalizing the PR

  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have added tests for new features and bugfixes
  • I have added documentation for new features
  • If it is a modifying the libf3d API, I have updated bindings
  • If it is a modifying the .github/workflows/versions.json, I have updated docker_timestamp

AI Disclosure

  • I did not use AI to generate any of the content of that pull request
  • I used AI to generate code in that pull request, if yes please disclose which part of the code was generated and with which model.
  • ...

Continuous integration

Please write a comment to run CI, eg: \ci fast.
See here for more info.

@exbluesbreaker exbluesbreaker requested a review from a team as a code owner June 21, 2026 15:14
@exbluesbreaker

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

\ci full

@exbluesbreaker

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@mwestphal Rework for bool flag in jump_to commands

@snoyer

snoyer commented Jun 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

how about jump_by_* instead of jump_to_*_relative? It'd be more concise and symmetrical with jump_to_*. Or is that too subtle?

Comment thread doc/user/07-COMMANDS.md
@exbluesbreaker

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

how about jump_by_* instead of jump_to_*_relative? It'd be more concise and symmetrical with jump_to_*. Or is that too subtle?

Honestly, I do not like it, having relative seem more clear to me. "Linguistic shenanigans" with using different kind of prepositions meaning different things seems confusing. @mwestphal what do you think?

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jun 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.06%. Comparing base (537f127) to head (603c851).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3250   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.06%   97.06%           
=======================================
  Files         212      212           
  Lines       17570    17584   +14     
=======================================
+ Hits        17054    17068   +14     
  Misses        516      516           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@mwestphal

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

how about jump_by_* instead of jump_to_*_relative? It'd be more concise and symmetrical with jump_to_*. Or is that too subtle?

Honestly, I do not like it, having relative seem more clear to me. "Linguistic shenanigans" with using different kind of prepositions meaning different things seems confusing. @mwestphal what do you think?

no strong opinion. @Meakk ?

@mwestphal

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

how about jump_by_* instead of jump_to_*_relative? It'd be more concise and symmetrical with jump_to_*. Or is that too subtle?

Honestly, I do not like it, having relative seem more clear to me. "Linguistic shenanigans" with using different kind of prepositions meaning different things seems confusing. @mwestphal what do you think?

thinking back on it, i prefer it being explicit

Comment thread doc/user/07-COMMANDS.md
@exbluesbreaker

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@mwestphal Added MIGRATION.md update

@Meakk

Meakk commented Jun 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I prefer jump_to_*_relative too. A bit more verbose but clearer to me.

@exbluesbreaker exbluesbreaker requested a review from mwestphal June 23, 2026 20:43
@exbluesbreaker

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

oops, forgot missing test failure, though not sure what is it about

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

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants