Skip to content

New Bug Report Template #1051

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 6, 2022
Merged

New Bug Report Template #1051

merged 7 commits into from
Mar 6, 2022

Conversation

alex-courtis
Copy link
Member

@alex-courtis alex-courtis commented Mar 5, 2022

Try it out here: https://github.com/alex-courtis/nvim-tree.lua/issues

Heavily based on telescope's.

Minimal config contains defaults. #1050 will make synchronising these easier. We could use a completely minimal setup require'nvim-tree'.setup {} however that may make it difficult for the user to add settings and identify the defaults.

Works on my machine, I would be grateful for some testing of nvt-min.lua

vim.opt.cursorline = true

-- MODIFY NVIM-TREE SETTINGS THAT ARE _NECESSARY_ FOR REPRODUCING THE ISSUE
_G.setup = function()
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This could be split into a separate file, but that complicates things for the user.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am wondering if it should list all available options or should users put required one by themselves.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That is a very good question.

  1. All defaults specified
    - Very verbose, large file
    + Helps highlight which defaults the user has changed

  2. User's changes only
    + Clean setup, small file
    - User must know which defaults they have changed

The README and help directs the user to use 1.

I prefer 2 hovewer from bug reports it appears that many user prefer 1. They are likely just continuing with the setup that they have been directed to use.

The intent of the "clean setup" is to have the user replicate their issue with few config changes. However, if they completely replace the default config with their own, we should still be able to replicate.

Thoughts @kyazdani42 ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i'm not too sure, i'm a bit afraid that users just skip this because it's too lengthy. We could try and see how people behave with this new issue template, if it's too much, we can simplify this part.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's see but I am leaning towards reports describing reproducible steps as: "I used setup() function with only option A set to a value which results in unexpected behaviour". Other defaults are relevant I think.

Thanks for doing leg work here! It should make @kyazdani42's life way easier now.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It will be interesting to see what users actually do with the minimal config.

@alex-courtis
Copy link
Member Author

/ping @gegoune as I cannot add reviewers to the PR ;)

require('packer').sync()
vim.cmd [[autocmd User PackerComplete ++once echo "Ready!" | lua setup()]]
vim.opt.termguicolors = true
vim.opt.cursorline = true
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not strictly necessary, however it makes it easier to identify issues around file focus etc.

@alex-courtis alex-courtis mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2022
Copy link
Member

@kyazdani42 kyazdani42 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

let's try that for a while :) thanks

@kyazdani42 kyazdani42 merged commit 7878e92 into nvim-tree:master Mar 6, 2022
Almo7aya pushed a commit to Almo7aya/nvim-tree.lua that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants