fix #2 - fuzzaldrin-plus

[mateusvahl]

This aims to fix issue #2.
As as far as I checked, the difference between fuzzaldrin and fuzzaldrin-plus is the better result quality. There's no API differences for score method, all tests are passing.

@50Wliu Could you please confirm if this resolves the issue?
Thanks.

[50Wliu]

I am of course 👍 on this but I'd like @as-cii to voice his thoughts on it as well.

[as-cii]

Thanks for this pull-request, @Mateuspv. And thanks @50Wliu for the heads-up. ⚡️

I am cool with switching to fuzzaldrin-plus, but it'd be nice to confirm it works well with all the packages that currently use atom-select-list:

• bookmarks
• command-palette
• encoding-selector
• fuzzy-finder
• git-diff
• grammar-selector
• line-ending-selector
• snippets
• spell-check
• styleguide
• symbols-view

@50Wliu @Mateuspv: are you interested in helping out with that? It should be enough to npm link this branch on each of the above package, ensure specs still pass and perform a manual test of the basic functionality.

[mateusvahl]

Hi @as-cii , I can review this next weekend, but wold be great if someone else double check.
thnx.

[as-cii]

Nice @Mateuspv, thanks! ✨

@ungb @Ben3eeE: could you help @Mateuspv test his upcoming pull-requests that upgrade atom-select-list on the aforementioned packages in order to use fuzzaldrin-plus?

[Ben3eeE]

@as-cii Happy to help test the PRs ✨

@Mateuspv You can @mention me in the upcoming PRs and I will take a look at them.

[caesarsol]

Hello guys, thanks for your work on this, exactly what I was looking for!

Do you have any idea on when this PR can be merged?
Do you need any help on testing out the mentioned list of 3rd party packages?

[as-cii]

Hello @caesarsol, and thanks for offering your help! 🙇

Unfortunately it seems like no progress has been made on upgrading the packages I mentioned in #20 (comment). However, if you are interested, we would welcome your contributions on the aforementioned packages! Like I said earlier, it should be enough to:

• npm link this branch on each package
• Ensure specs still pass
• Perform a manual test of the basic functionality

[olsonpm]

Well this took me some time as I haven't built atom from source or used ubuntu in a while nor was I familiar with most of those packages, but I went through all the testing you outlined @as-cii

To be specific, for each package I ran atom --test spec before and after npm linking atom-select-list.
Then I manually tested the atom-select-list behavior for each package before and after npm linking.

This was done on a fresh ubuntu 16.04 vm.

Edit: Just realized the README should also be updated (it mentions/links fuzzaldrin)

[as-cii]

Nice work, @olsonpm. Thanks for your help! 💯

Can you open a pull request on each of the aforementioned packages and link them here? After doing that, I would love to get extra 👀 from @Ben3eeE and @50Wliu to ensure we are not introducing any regression.

[olsonpm]

Hmm I'm confused. Mind explaining what the PR would contain? Would it be a placeholder with a "to-be" bump in the minor revision for "atom-select-list"?

I will definitely do whatever though.

[as-cii]

Hmm I'm confused. Mind explaining what the PR would contain? Would it be a placeholder with a "to-be" bump in the minor revision for "atom-select-list"?

Good point, for some of those packages we can't really open a pull request because it would just be a version bump (and we can't really bump the version until we merge this pull request and release a new version of atom-select-list).

However, I think there is a subset of those packages that require more complex changes. For example, after a quick look, it seems like fuzzy-finder contains some logic to explicitly use fuzzaldrin-plus instead of fuzzaldrin, and if we use fuzzaldrin-plus by default we will have to invert that logic (or consider removing the useAlternateScoring setting altogether).

So here's a proposal:

• List out all the packages that are simple version bumps.
• Open pull requests for packages that require a more complex change (e.g. fuzzy-finder) and list them as well.

After doing that, we can start QA'ing them all and ensure we're not breaking anything. What do you think, @olsonpm?

[olsonpm]

ha thanks for the link into fuzzy-finder's usage of fuzzaldrin-plus. Makes sense and I'll do that.

[olsonpm]

Looks like there's only two packages that will require PRs, symbols-view and fuzzy-finder. Command-palette depends on fuzzaldrin & plus but it overrides atom-select-list's filter altogether so is unaffected.

One question before I create the PRs though - what those three packages have in common is they use fuzzaldrin's match to highlight the characters which match the query. I don't want to work heavily in coffeescript, but I could add a PR to at least expose the match used by this library so consumers have the choice of using that as opposed to hard-depending on fuzzaldrin itself. Let me know what you think when you're able - the PRs for the symbols-view and fuzzy-finder will differ depending on whether we expose match.