Fix embed view

[panda01]

• Removed collapsible sidebar.
• Removed spy panel.

[spalger]

I don't think the spy panel should be removed from the embed mode.

[BigFunger]

Looks like the spy panel was removed in all instances, not just embedded.

[panda01]

Whoops, silly me. Fixed that @BigFunger.

[BigFunger]

@panda01 Your most recent commit re-added the spy tab to the visualization editor in the Visualize app, but it is still missing from the Discover app and the Dashboard app.

[BigFunger]

LGTM

The only concern that I have is the name of the chrome property that you're taking advantage of. @spalger is the name of that property descriptive enough given the context in which it is being used here? I assume that the getVisible function refers to the visibility of the chrome-application wrapper as a whole. Since the spy panel is a part of something other than the chrome-application wrapper (namely a visualization), should there be some other mechanism in play here? Or are we OK with arbitrarily deciding what elements are part of the chrome and what are not?

[spalger]

@BigFunger I'm fine deciding whether or not the spy is visible based on if the chrome is visible.

The intention behind chrome.isVisible() was to be able to create "hybrid" views (down the road) which didn't need to know about the query string parameters passed to the application in order to render properly (which is why I wanted to get rid of $scope.embedded).

[panda01]

I'm not really that much of a fan of that either. I think perhaps it would
be better to just pass in the function after is has been called
On Oct 29, 2015 13:01, "Spencer" notifications@github.com wrote:

@BigFunger https://github.com/BigFunger I'm fine deciding whether or
not the spy is visible based on if the chrome is visible.

The intention behind chrome.isVisible() was to be able to create "hybrid"
views (down the road) which didn't need to know about the query string
parameters passed to the application in order to render properly (which is
why I wanted to get rid of $scope.embedded).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5166 (comment).

[spalger]

@panda01 pass in the function? Not sure what you mean.

[spalger]

You mean pass in an isVisible() function? At what point would we convert it from chrome.isVisible() to isVisible()? How is that different?

[panda01]

No I mean pass in the value. Of the function. As a param like
spy-panel-visible
On Oct 29, 2015 13:10, "Spencer" notifications@github.com wrote:

You mean pass in a isVisible() function? At what point would we convert
it from chrome.isVisible() to isVisible()? How is that different?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5166 (comment).

[spalger]

Yeah, at the visualization level I think that makes more sense

[lukasolson]

LGTM!

[spalger]

LGTM, but needs a merge with master

[epixa]

This was never backported to 4.2