On 19 March 2018 at 16:05, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Certainly. > > Basically I want to avoid a situation, where diving in would result in an > empty spotter: > > > > > > So instead I would like to remove the dive in capability (both the icon, > and the action), when the result will be empty. (And of course keep it if > there will be something). >
Rather than removing the icon, please consider modifying the icon to include a red cross or similar, with a tooltip indicating no results. I believe that is more explicit than an absent icon. cheers -ben > > Ideally it should be possible to define it in the "parent" step, because > sometimes I know there will be no further steps, and sometimes the result > is simply empty (in which case I might still want to show that there are > zero children). > > Thanks, > Peter > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am not sure I understand the issue. Can you re-explain it please? >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > correction: spotterForRenderingShapesFor: is not in Pharo 6.1 (it's >> added by Roassal2GT) >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > is it possible to disable GTSpotter dive in functionality when the >> result would be empty? >> > >> > I've tried looking at GTSpotterStep>>canDiveIn: but it seems that no >> matter what there will be at least one processor (at least the "parent" >> one, which is weird). >> > >> > Also there are two spotter extensions directly on Object (Pharo 6.1) >> > * spotterForRenderingShapesFor: >> > * spotterRePropertiesFor: >> > >> > which are always applied... but canDiveIn: was returing true even when >> I disabled them. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Peter >> > >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Obvious things are difficult to teach." >> >> >> >> >> >> >
