Add [scratchblocks] export #1646

tjvr · 2017-01-30T11:00:20Z

Good morning! :)

This is a small PR to add a "stringify..." option to the menu. This opens a dialog box containing scratchblocks code, which can be copy/pasted into the Scratch Forums. (You can also try the test page, but since Snap! already has a "script pic" feature, the test page is less useful!)

Uploading pictures to the Snap! forums is quite time-consuming. Copy/pasting scratchblocks code is quicker, and might help to facilitate discussion on the User thread.

I've partly done this as an exercise in writing code in a Jens-approved style; please let me know what you think @jmoenig! :-)

jmoenig · 2017-01-30T12:15:15Z

Thank you!!

I love this idea, it's wonderful to be able to convert Snap scripts into text-code that can then be pasted into the Scratch Forums. Did you know that one of my very first contributions to Scratch (way back when, I think it must have been v 1.2) was the ability to convert scripts to XML, and my example was always pasting blocks into the forums?

This looks quite pullable. Just one question: Would it be possible - and perhaps even make sense - to just use Snap's built-in "Codification" mechanism for this, instead of hard-coding the Scratch-Forum block syntax into the Snap sources? That way we could offer any kind of stringification, and externalize it, too. The only new feature we'd have to add would be to pop-up an alert-box letting you copy the generated code out of Snap.

Does that make sense at all?
Thanks!

tjvr · 2017-01-30T12:21:22Z

I'm glad you like it! :-)

I thought about using codification to implement this, but I don't think it would make sense. Here's why: the scratchblocks syntax very closely mirrors the Morphic structure of the blocks. This PR is able to be so small because of this. It makes more sense to think about scratchblocks as an alternative "rendering" of the block morphs, than as a language that you can codify to! This means that I don't have to hard-code all of the blocks, in fact.

So while it's a neat idea, I don't think it would make sense to combine scratchblocks and codification. Unless codification works very differently than I thought!

Did you know that one of my very first contributions to Scratch (way back when, I think it must have been v 1.2) was the ability to convert scripts to XML

You know, I do remember that! It was called Chirp, wasn't it? :)

jmoenig · 2017-01-30T12:30:06Z

Ah, okay, your explanation does make sense yes. Awesome, I'm going to pull this next up. Thank you so much!

tjvr · 2017-01-30T12:31:18Z

Great! I'm very pleased :D Thanks Jens!

BookOwl · 2017-01-30T20:10:45Z

@tjvr, some bugs have been found.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/2423593/
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/2423636/

tjvr · 2017-01-30T22:46:42Z

thanks, fixed :)

jmoenig · 2017-01-31T08:18:28Z

blocks.js

+    menu.addItem(
+      'stringify...',
+        function() {
+            var code = myself.stringify();


okay, how about replacing this with a Morphic dialog box? Now that Morphic supports copy & paste of text, we can do this nicer :-)

We should make a generic one that has some text about how to copy and paste. C&P is only supported via keyboard shortcuts so it's non-obvious to many.

Anyway, there's a mostly correct dialog in #1084

That seems like a lot of code just for copy/pasting scratchblocks!

If you don't mind I'm not going to do that here, and instead open a new issue for that improvement. :)

It's mostly just layout / morphic code.

And if we use it in 2 place, then we could create a CopySelectionDialogMorph and store it in widgets.js, so then it's like...no code. ;)

cycomachead · 2017-01-31T09:52:48Z

blocks.js

        "delete",
        'userDestroy'
    );
+    menu.addItem(


I think the word "stringify" is confusing. Namely many Snap! users aren't familiar with the term "string", but also, in my mind at least "stringify" implies are more generic use than Scratch Blocks syntax.

That later comment also means I have reservations about using the function stringify for something like this, as opposed to say toScratchBlocks, which I think is much more clear.

Not the best name, no! But has to be better than "scratchblocks"...

But has to be better than "scratchblocks"...

Wait, why? (or am I just missing something)

The name "scratchblocks" is really unhelpful; to someone unfamiliar with the term, it doesn't really help explain what it is. Maybe "export text" or something? The closest analogy I can think of is the export project summary feature from Scratch 1.x...

I guess so, but "scratchblocks" is at least specific about what this is. If you google "scratchblocks" then your project at least comes up at the top so it's discoverable.

Also, since this is only for the Scratch forum (at the moment) we might just say "export for scratch forum" (and update it as needed in the future)

How about "as forum code"?

forum code... is what I was thinking too!

forum code sounds good to me!

cycomachead · 2017-01-31T09:57:26Z

blocks.js

+// SymbolMorph to "scratchblocks"
+
+SymbolMorph.prototype.stringify = function () {
+    var symbol = {


This format seems confusing to me, especially since there's only one option.

Why not just use a simple conditional?

It's mapping Snap! icon names to scratchblocks icon names. We might add more icons in the future, I guess.

I get what it's doing, but only after reading it like a few times. That reason makes sense, though it seems better, to me, to add complexity as needed, that's all.

dekrain · 2017-01-31T18:17:09Z

blocks.js

+
+TemplateSlotMorph.prototype.stringify = function () {
+    var category = this.parent.stringifyCategory() || ' :: grey';
+    return '(' + this.children[0].stringify() + category + ')';


In Snap, template variables are in doubled rings, like here: script variables ((a)::grey) ::grey

Already done! Please try the demo version

Your demo site either isn't updated to the newest code, or your code is still buggy, because I'm still getting incorrect results for rings

I'm still getting incorrect results for rings

What specific examples don't work?

Nevermind, it's working now.

tjvr · 2017-01-31T21:14:01Z

Okay, I've renamed the methods & the menu item. :)

I opened #1648 for the dialog enhancement.

Other than that this should be ready to merge :)

cycomachead · 2017-01-31T21:20:47Z

LGTM. (At least the code, I haven't had a chance to test it yet)

cycomachead · 2017-01-31T21:21:38Z

blocks.js

+
+SyntaxElementMorph.prototype.toScratchblocksCategory = function () {
+    // private. answers with scratchblocks category specifier
+    if (!this.category) return '';


Nit: Jens uses {return ''; } as the format of these things.

cycomachead · 2017-01-31T21:22:09Z

blocks.js

        'userDestroy'
    );
+    menu.addItem(
+      'forum code...',


Nit: space between n and (

I vote for "Scratchblocks" over "forum code." It really is quite Scratch-specific. When we have our own forum with Snap!blocks we can change the item name.

changed to scratchblocks code.... :)

cycomachead · 2017-01-31T22:11:29Z

I vote for "Scratchblocks" over "forum code." It really is quite Scratch-specific. When we have our own forum with Snap!blocks we can change the item name.

Speaking of which we should get on that. Remind me to bring this up next week!

jmoenig · 2017-07-28T10:15:07Z

I've changed my mind about this, nice as it is. Basically, we will get another way to export scripts in our own format. For this we might make a forum plug-in that renders the exported scripts. But then we can also drag thoses shared scripts back into Snap, and use them as "real" ones. We need to ponder this some more....

tjvr · 2017-07-28T11:25:10Z

Fair enough :-) Feel free to close!

brianharvey · 2017-07-30T19:33:58Z

If the alleged our-own script-to-text format is > 1/2 year away, I would still argue for pulling this in the coming release.

jmoenig · 2017-07-30T20:59:36Z

The format is mostly done, it's @bromagosa's PR #1746

Add scratchblocks export

3c01f49

jmoenig added the blessed by Jens ;-) label Jan 30, 2017

scratchblocks: Fix MultiArgMorph handling

df93b2e

jmoenig reviewed Jan 31, 2017

View reviewed changes

cycomachead reviewed Jan 31, 2017

View reviewed changes

dekrain reviewed Jan 31, 2017

View reviewed changes

tjvr added 2 commits January 31, 2017 21:07

scratchblocks: Rename menu item to 'forum code...'

604cf84

scratchblocks: rename stringify() -> toScratchblocks()

43fe09e

tjvr mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2017

Add CopySelectionDialogMorph #1648

Open

cycomachead reviewed Jan 31, 2017

View reviewed changes

tjvr added 2 commits January 31, 2017 22:03

scratchblocks: Rename menu item {forum -> scratchblocks} code...

62fc559

minor style fixes

1e34ad9

jmoenig added under review and removed blessed by Jens ;-) labels Jul 28, 2017

Add [scratchblocks] export #1646

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add [scratchblocks] export #1646

Uh oh!

Conversation

tjvr commented Jan 30, 2017

Uh oh!

jmoenig commented Jan 30, 2017

Uh oh!

tjvr commented Jan 30, 2017

Uh oh!

jmoenig commented Jan 30, 2017

Uh oh!

tjvr commented Jan 30, 2017

Uh oh!

BookOwl commented Jan 30, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tjvr commented Jan 30, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tjvr commented Jan 31, 2017

Uh oh!

cycomachead commented Jan 31, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cycomachead commented Jan 31, 2017

Uh oh!

jmoenig commented Jul 28, 2017

Uh oh!

tjvr commented Jul 28, 2017

Uh oh!

BookOwl commented Jan 30, 2017 •

edited

Loading