Wow, that was fast! Thanks @faho . 👍

I still think though that it makes more sense if the dconf completion was like the file/dir path completion in fish - to complete only one directory at a time.

Consider this scenario: let's say my key which I am looking for is somewhere under /org/gnome/. I don't know which directory I should follow after that, but I would probably recognize it if I saw its name. But after typing

dconf read /org/gnome/<TAB>

I get a lot of keys from /org/gnome/desktop/ which are irrelevant for me and I have to scroll down a lot to reach e.g. /org/gnome/shell/* keys. With dconf list-type completion I would get to choose only from

settings-daemon/
shell/
nautilus/
system/
evince/
evolution-data-server/
desktop/
eog/
terminal/
nm-applet/
evolution/
Totem/
software/

where its (obviously) easier to find the shell subdir

However, I must say that also the full-path completion style has its benefits - if you know the filename/part of the path you can search much easier:

$ dconf /<TAB><KEY_DOWN>location
search: location    
/org/gnome/shell/extensions/openweather/geolocation-provider  /org/gtk/settings/file-chooser/location-mode
/org/gnome/system/location/enabled

I can't say I have a strong opinion about this, but I think the dir-by-dir-type completion is more intuitive for users (as it is used for file/dir path completions). Writing long paths is IMHO well covered by suggestions if the user wants to use them more than once.

Maybe it would be best if both completion styles were available. (I'm not sure how.)

Uh oh!

Add completion for dconf #3638

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions