(In reply to Ping Chen (:rnons) from comment #2) > Sorry about the mess. No problem, it wasn't broken... > In my opinion, `buildRecipientRows` is only used for other.header at the moment, not for any recipient fields. So one option is renaming `buildRecipientRows` to `buildOtherHeaderRow` and removing all auto-completion and pills related code from it. That isn't just an opinion, it's a fact! ;-) - only used for building other.header rows atm: https://searchfox.org/comm-central/search?path=&q=buildRecipientRows https://searchfox.org/comm-central/rev/f85c4e3ebe5c142fe2ed6f6e064a421720bdaa42/mail/components/compose/content/MsgComposeCommands.js#3899-3915 In spite of that, my gut feeling says that we could just keep the autocomplete flavor of this function anyway, maybe it'll be useful some time. Perhaps addons might want to create auto-completing fields... Otoh, we don't usually keep unused code. I'll let Alex decide. If we go for the reduced function, we could consider moving a bit more stuff from the caller side into the `buildOtherHeaderRow` function. Thanks Ping for noticing that the function name in the current layout should be singular as we're only creating one row at a time. Alex, wrt function names Sg. vs. Pl., pls take note ;-)
Bug 1663526 Comment 3 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Ping Chen (:rnons) from comment #2) > Sorry about the mess. No problem, it wasn't broken... > In my opinion, `buildRecipientRows` is only used for other.header at the moment, not for any recipient fields. So one option is renaming `buildRecipientRows` to `buildOtherHeaderRow` and removing all auto-completion and pills related code from it. That isn't just an opinion, it's a fact! ;-) - only used for building other.header rows atm: https://searchfox.org/comm-central/search?path=&q=buildRecipientRows https://searchfox.org/comm-central/rev/f85c4e3ebe5c142fe2ed6f6e064a421720bdaa42/mail/components/compose/content/MsgComposeCommands.js#3899-3915 In spite of that, my gut feeling says that we could just keep the autocomplete flavor of this function anyway, maybe it'll be useful some time. Perhaps addons might want to create auto-completing fields... Otoh, we don't usually keep unused code. I'll let Alex decide. If we go for the reduced function, we could consider moving a bit more stuff from the caller side into the `buildOtherHeaderRow` function. Thanks Ping for noticing that the function name in the current layout should be singular as we're only creating one row at a time. Alex, wrt function names Sg. vs. Pl., pls take note ;-)