Streamlined level building experience (e.g. `build level -noPrompts`)

[ohadschn]

Would be nice if build level had some sub commands that don't pop up the initial into explanation and/or confirmations when hint and description aren't set, e.g. build level -noPrompts.

I'm currently building several levels and need to dismiss these pop-ups every time (first world problem to be sure...).
Also, IMHO the experience should start with a trivial tree (single c0 initial commit with HEAD=main pointing to it).

[pcottle]

I took a stab at this in 55fa0a4 -- downside is that it prevents showing the help dialog if you use that option later :P

but hope this helps!

[ohadschn]

@pcottle it works, thanks!

1. WDYT about having the build level experience start with a trivial tree (single c0 initial commit with HEAD=main pointing to it)?
2. I'm still getting "you have not specified a start/hint" dialog prompt, so something like noPrompts would be ideal

BTW using your site for a git workshop I'm conducting, great job!

[pcottle]

1. I think having at least two commits makes the UI more understandable, vs just a floating ball in space with no arrows. Why does the second commit cause an issue?

2. sure that sounds like a nice change. Would you want to attempt that PR? I'll be busy at work for the week

[ohadschn]

@pcottle

I would argue that level builders are experienced enough to understand what that floating ball means. The issue is that other than importTreeNow (which is undocumented #1234), there is no way to create a simple exercise that starts with c0.

This is because once you delete c1 you now have a hidden state (namely the "current index" is 2) that isn't carried over to the student's exercise. So trying to emulate your solution tree, they will commit but get c1 whereas the solution would have c2.

I suggested git gc as a mechanism to reset that index (something like, reset it to N+1 where N is the highest current existing commit index) here #1233 but you closed the issue, not sure if due to a misunderstanding or you disagree with the idea.

RE PR, I'm probably going to be busy at work as well, but if I get to it I'll give it a shot :)

[pcottle]

Oh I see, I missed that part in #1233 -- yeah I'm ok with a git gc to explicitly go cleanup the commits with no references in the tree and then that resets the index.

I'd prefer that a bit over starting all new levels with just c0. I get that level builders understand it, but most level players still might benefit from the co <- c1 initial graph. That's why I stuck it in there.

Sounds good, yeah a PR for either the git gc command or adding more functionality to the level builder with optional flags works for me!

[ohadschn]

I'd prefer that a bit over starting all new levels with just c0. I get that level builders understand it, but most level players still might benefit from the co <- c1 initial graph. That's why I stuck it in there.

Well, I would argue that is a decision for the level maker to make :) Builders who agree with you are just one git commit away from the same experience, whereas builders who disagree are relegated to "secret" APIs...

[pcottle]

Yeah that's fair, I'm ok with either changing the start tree or the git gc command. Will welcome any PRs on that, but dont think this is a superrrr urgent burning item at the moment! Will leave the issue open and reopen the other