Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Porting CustomHelpCommand from bot #470

Open
1 of 2 tasks
purefunctor opened this issue Oct 1, 2020 · 5 comments
Open
1 of 2 tasks

Porting CustomHelpCommand from bot #470

purefunctor opened this issue Oct 1, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
area: backend Related to internal functionality and utilities category: core Related to core functionality status: planning Discussing details type: feature Relating to the functionality of the application.

Comments

@purefunctor
Copy link
Member

purefunctor commented Oct 1, 2020

Description

This proposes porting the CustomHelpCommand class from the server's Python Bot. This would mean either replacing the current implementation for SeasonalBot or extending it to fit the port.

Reasoning

Most command groups often make use of ctx.send_help like .snake or .cogs which don't utilize the help embeds. A common pattern that's used for this instead is to use ctx.invoke the help command explicitly like .caesarcipher. This would allow for the help responses for these command groups to be consistent with each other.

Proposed Implementation

The port should hopefully be a one-to-one copy of the original implementation, moving helper functions and adding a few adjustments for SeasonalBot.

Would you like to implement this yourself?

  • I'd like to implement this feature myself
  • Anyone can implement this feature
@purefunctor purefunctor added type: feature Relating to the functionality of the application. status: planning Discussing details labels Oct 1, 2020
@purefunctor purefunctor self-assigned this Oct 1, 2020
@Xithrius
Copy link
Member

Xithrius commented Mar 2, 2021

@purefunctor are you still planning on implementing this, or do you think this is worthy of more discussion?

@Xithrius Xithrius added the area: backend Related to internal functionality and utilities label Mar 2, 2021
@purefunctor
Copy link
Member Author

I can't say I can work on this for now; I suppose further discussion might be needed in terms of the implications towards complexity or feature parity with the other bot.

@Xithrius
Copy link
Member

Xithrius commented Mar 2, 2021

Thank you for the quick response. I hope everything works out in the end.

@scragly scragly mentioned this issue Mar 16, 2021
2 tasks
@Xithrius Xithrius added the up for grabs Available for anyone to work on label Aug 23, 2021
@Xithrius Xithrius added the category: core Related to core functionality label Sep 6, 2021
@ChrisLovering
Copy link
Member

This is now being ported to bot-core so that both bots can use the same code.

@shtlrs
Copy link
Member

shtlrs commented May 5, 2023

I'll take care of this.

@shtlrs shtlrs self-assigned this May 5, 2023
@TizzySaurus TizzySaurus removed the up for grabs Available for anyone to work on label May 5, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area: backend Related to internal functionality and utilities category: core Related to core functionality status: planning Discussing details type: feature Relating to the functionality of the application.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants