portals list level summary and portals list filter by polygon #983
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 8 commits
April 17, 2015 16:00
|
Gah... somehow it's added a bunch of other changes after the fact. Ignore this pull request. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These are two changes, in two separate commits, but I'm sorry I don't know how to do two separate pull requests.
The two new features are completely independent of each other.
The first will, if a drawn tools polygon is present ON SCREEN (it needs to be visible and within the display region), filter the portal list to only display the portals inside the polygon.
The second feature will include a portal count summary by team and level for the portals that we have listed. You might think this is redundant with the portal count plugin, but it's often handy to get a quick count while looking at the portals, and it seems quite appropriate, especially when combined with the
filtering in the first feature.