Option to invert boolean umbraco properties about umbraco-ditto HOT 12 CLOSED

Sounds like a sensible option, but surely you'd change the POCO property to be IsHidden rather than IsVisible?

from umbraco-ditto.

The issue really pops up when you have multiple checkbox options and you've named them because of how the checkbox works so you end up with HideX, ShowX depending on what the default action should be. The only reason for this suggestions is so that on your viewmodel at least, you can reference them all in the same way.

from umbraco-ditto.

Sure, I see! I'd probably go for InvertedBooleanValueResolver though, personally find it more descriptive than a BooleanValueResolver with a flag inverting things.

from umbraco-ditto.

Hmm, I wonder if this should actually be an InvertBooleanTypeConverter rather than a value resolver as at this point you know it's resovled as boolean, and it's a case of converting it (ie, inverting it)

Note to self, the lines between Value Resolvers and Type Converters can get a little blury :)

from umbraco-ditto.

Yea, I'm still not up to speed yet as I've not used 0.7.0 in anger. My mind is still in the TypeConverter frame of mind.

from umbraco-ditto.

Wadda you know, this works :)

from umbraco-ditto.

badda bing, badda boom! (instant regret for typing that, leaving it there anyways)

from umbraco-ditto.

Sweet! Well I'm happy with this as a solution so gonna class it as closed. Thanks for you input @jamiepollock (I'll ignore your last comment ;))

from umbraco-ditto.

I know you've closed this, but it got me thinking about the difference between ValueResolvers and TypeConverters... my take on it here would be that you are manipulating the value, so that would come under a resolver. Whereas if you were changing the type, that would be a converter.

I dunno... apples and oranges

from umbraco-ditto.

I think this is where the lines blur. To me, you've resolved a value already, which is the boolean, then you want to convert it into another type, which in this case is an inverted boolean.

Like I say, you could do either, I just think this is less messy, ie, you don't have an attribute config setting that only applies if the value is boolean.

If we find loads of people asking for it, we can review that decision.

from umbraco-ditto.

👍 💯

from umbraco-ditto.

I'm kinda glad this is closed as it feels a little icky to me. Inversion like this should be blatantly obvious in the code. I like to be able to trace a models properties easily from the back office to my view.

from umbraco-ditto.