Tutorials #66
Tutorials #66
Conversation
…hub.io into tutorials
Start implementation of tutorials
There is now a editorLines property, which sets the height of the editor (defaults to 5). Additionally, the descriptions of individual steps are stored in a separate HTML file, which is referenced from the descfile property. These files should start with an html:div element, and then contain the content of the former desc property in the JSON file.
there is now a brief tutorial for writing tutorials included ;-)
- add textarea for preview - refactor editor.onChange calling logic to prevent infinite looping - move big part of calculations and helper methods into separate functions
- cleanUps were relicts from onChange refactoring and now prevented rendered svg from being displayed
- replace deprecated verovio options - catch rendering errors
- add preview snippets to xml files - add prefill files - adapt description texts
- add preview snippets to xml files - add prefill files - adapt description texts
- rename prefill -> prefillFile
# Conflicts: # _config.yml
…github.io into tutorials
This reverts commit 6a41547.
…github.io into tutorials
…github.io into tutorials
Tutorials: Final steps of march tutorial
|
@ahankinson thanks for your enthusiasm about the tutorials. But this was not intended to be released on Could you please revert this PR from |
|
Yes, I can. However, I would note that there is some value in having people kick the tyres on the live site, without having to check out and build the If you still want me to revert it, I can, but I would counter-propose that we call this a 'beta' release? |
|
Completely see your point. But in the current state it would be more like an 'epsilon' release with a lot of open ends (like the structure tutorial). There will probably be some hard changes for the tutorial logic as well as the visual outcome as discussed in #64 and #65. Let us just finalize these most pending issues and we will be happy to get everyone kicked in. So right now, I would still ask for a reversion from PS: I have to apologize for all the confusion, as I probably did not explicitly enough point out in my LGTM-message in #57 that it should go only to |
|
very briefly – I'm also convinced that this should live under the hood for a little longer. Yes, we need to involve as many people as possible, but we don't want to confuse others, at least as long as the technology is still moving…
… Am 13.12.2018 um 13:04 schrieb Stefan Münnich ***@***.***>:
Completely see your point. But in the current state it would be more like an 'epsilon' release with a lot of open ends (like the structure tutorial).
There will probably be some hard changes for the tutorial logic as well as the visual outcome as discussed in #64 and #65. Let us just finalize these most pending issues and we will be happy to get everyone kicked in.
So right now, I would still ask for a reversion from master. What do you think @kepper ?
PS: I have to apologize for all the confusion, as I probably did not explicitly enough point out in my LGTM-message in #57 that it should go only to tutorials branch.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
It has been reverted. |
|
I think. |
|
Thank you a lot! |
This is an administrative PR, moving the tutorials into the master branch. All approvals went through on PR #57
Exceptionally, I will merge this myself, but have opened this PR to serve as a record.