support for zoom + data driven functions #16
Conversation
|
|
||
| } else { | ||
| var property = parameters.property === undefined ? '$zoom' : parameters.property; | ||
| var zoomAndDataDependent = typeof parameters.stops[0][0] === 'object'; | ||
| var dataDependent = zoomAndDataDependent || parameters.property !== undefined; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What we've been referring to as "data-driven functions" I think we should rebrand as "property functions" or "feature functions" or "feature property functions" before shipping. "Data-driven" is a more ambiguous name that potentially encompasses a larger suite of features including "feature property functions"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. Will this also apply to how we talk about these things externally? Which do you prefer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm ok with talking about data-driven styling in general. This specific feature, however, I have been and will continue to refer to as "property functions."
We support "property functions", "zoom functions", and "property-and-zoom functions" all of which can be referred to as "functions."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not necessarily preferring "property functions" over "feature functions", that's just the terminology I've been test-driving lately.
I've realized more recently that the isPaintValueFeatureConstant and isPaintValueZoomConstant would segue more nicely into the "feature functions" naming scheme.
| @@ -258,7 +256,7 @@ test('isConstant', function(t) { | |||
| property: 'mapbox' | |||
| }); | |||
|
|
|||
| t.notOk(f.isGlobalConstant); | |||
| t.ok(f.isZoomConstant); | |||
| t.notOk(f.isFeatureConstant); | |||
|
|
|||
| t.end(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be possible to add unit tests for "zoom and feature" functions?
|
Looks good! 🚢 |
👀 @lucaswoj