Feature Request: Do not sort extension keyboard shortcuts by internal command name
Reported by
vince.ru...@gmail.com,
Jun 12 2017
|
||||
Issue descriptionChrome Version : 59.0.3071.86 (Official Build) (64-bit) URLs (if applicable) : n/a Other browsers tested: n/a What steps will reproduce the problem? n/a What is the expected result? Keyboard shortcuts should be sorted either by description (alphabetically) or by author-specified order in manifest file (would require changing "commands" from key/value object to order-preserving array). What happens instead? Keyboard shortcuts are unintuitively sorted by internal command name. Links back-end/under-the-hood variable/command names to front-end appearance.
,
Jun 13 2017
That being said, I agree with the OP that current behavior of sorting by manifest key name is counter-intuitive. I think the obviously expected behavior is preserving the manifest's order.
,
Jun 13 2017
I agree completely that sorting by description isn't ideal. I just offered it as a more intuitive solution than sorting by internal command name. Really the best solution would be to allow the extension author complete control over the order. But that would require significant changes to the manifest format, it seems. What if you added an "order" property to each command that functioned like z-index in CSS. Lower orders come before higher orders, order assumed to be 0 or some middle value if not specified, and and identical order values are then sorted by command name or description. That way you wouldn't have to change the "commands" object to an ordered array, which would break backwards compatibility.
,
Jun 13 2017
However if somehow the Chromium devs can make it so "commands" can either be an ordered array OR an unordered key/value object (to maintain backwards compatibility)... the ordered array is definitely preferred over the "order" property idea I just mentioned.
,
Jun 13 2017
Considering the above issue as feature and marking it as untriaged.
,
Sep 10 2017
,
Sep 15 2017
This sounds like a reasonable request, but realistically it's not something we'll get to in the near future. If someone else wanted to tackle this, we'd be happy to help out with reviews.
,
Jul 16
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/"><img alt="สัญญาอนุญาตของครีเอทีฟคอมมอนส์" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/4.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />ผลงานนี้ ใช้<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">สัญญาอนุญาตของครีเอทีฟคอมมอนส์แบบ แสดงที่มา-ไม่ใช้เพื่อการค้า-อนุญาตแบบเดียวกัน 4.0 International</a>. |
||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
||||
Comment 1 by woxxom@gmail.com
, Jun 13 2017There are some/many cases when the internal order should be preserved: extensions often come in many languages so the sorting order would be different in each language. This would make the extension's UI less predictable. Also, some extensions offer more important commands first, less important or less popular last. It might be worth adding a property for each command to indicate it's sortable by description: "commands": { "main": { "description": "Main feature" }, "additional1": { "sort_by_description": true, "description": "Additional feature foo" }, "additional2": { "sort_by_description": true, "description": "Additional feature bar" } }