Implement Conjugation view and insertion on click of the labels #391

angrezichatterbox · 2025-04-29T16:01:03Z

Contributor checklist

This pull request is on a separate branch and not the main branch
I have tested my code with the ./gradlew lintKotlin detekt test command as directed in the testing section of the contributing guide

Description

The PR implements the switching of the conjugation views and insertion on the click of the conjugate views.

Related issue

github-actions · 2025-04-29T16:01:28Z

Thank you for the pull request! ❤️

The Scribe-Android team will do our best to address your contribution as soon as we can. If you're not already a member of our public Matrix community, please consider joining! We'd suggest using Element as your Matrix client, and definitely join the General and Android rooms once you're in. Also consider attending our bi-weekly Saturday dev syncs. It'd be great to meet you 😊

github-actions · 2025-04-29T16:01:29Z

Maintainer Checklist

The following is a checklist for maintainers to make sure this process goes as well as possible. Feel free to address the points below yourself in further commits if you realize that actions are needed :)

The linting and formatting workflows within the PR checks do not indicate new errors in the files changed
The CHANGELOG has been updated with a description of the changes for the upcoming release and the corresponding issue (if necessary)

andrewtavis · 2025-04-29T16:02:46Z

Will get to this later this evening, @angrezichatterbox 💙

angrezichatterbox · 2025-04-29T16:05:25Z

I am not sure if I have missed anything. Happy to know any further refinement in codebase as well the overall implementation.

Continuing the discussion from #268. Currently I feel that the English conjugate labels might have a lot of repeating values when in the 3x2.

andrewtavis · 2025-04-29T16:43:05Z

So do you think that we should do what's in iOS now and switch the contract for English verbs to just get a restricted amount of data?

angrezichatterbox · 2025-04-30T02:16:51Z

So do you think that we should do what's in iOS now and switch the contract for English verbs to just get a restricted amount of data?

I am not sure about it. If the data makes sense even if it is repeating then it would be fine but else Happy to switch to the iOS style of things.

andrewtavis · 2025-05-01T11:56:52Z

I'd say maybe the best thing would be to keep it simple as we did in iOS, which has been confirmed with a bit of third party checks :) Specifically the way that iOS is set up is for higher levels of language learning, whereas the full 3x2 for all tenses is more something that just A1 English learners would need.

If we're keeping it the way it is in iOS, then we need a new form for the English verbs contract as English verbs for iOS is the only interface that makes use of sub selections as we're consistently listing the 3rd person singular form and the general form, and then the user selects which one they want from the next field. I'd say the new contract would be this, but please let me know what your feedback is 😊

{
  "conjugations": {
    "1": {
      "title": "Present",
      "1": {
        "title": "Pr. Simple",
        "Simple": {
          "I/you/plural":"simplePresent",
          "he/she/it":"simplePresentThirdPersonSingular"
        }
      },
      "2": {
        "title": "Pr. Perfect",
        "Perfect": {
          "I/you/plural":"have englishPastParticiple",
          "he/she/it":"has englishPastParticiple"
        }
      },
      "3": {
        "title": "Pr. Continuous",
        "Continuous": {
          "participle": "combinedPresentParticiple",
          "you/plural": "are combinedPresentParticiple",
          "I": "am combinedPresentParticiple",
          "he/she/it": "is combinedPresentParticiple"
        }
      },
      "4": {
        "title": "Pr. Perf. Continuous",
        "Perfect Continuous": {
          "I/you/plural": "have been combinedPresentParticiple",
          "he/she/it": "has been combinedPresentParticiple"
        }
      }
    },
    "2": {
      "title": "Past",
      "1": {"Simple": "simplePast"},
      "2": {"Perfect": "had "},
      "3": {
        "title": "Past Continuous",
        "Continuous": {
          "Participle": "combinedPresentParticiple",
          "I/he/she/it": "was combinedPresentParticiple",
          "you/plural": "were combinedPresentParticiple"
        }
      },
      "4": {"Perfect Continuous": "had been combinedPresentParticiple"}
    },
    "3": {
      "title": "Future",
      "1": {"Simple": "will infinitive"},
      "2": {"Perfect": "will have englishPastParticiple"},
      "3": {"Continuous": "will be combinedPresentParticiple"},
      "4": {"Perfect Continuous": "will have been combinedPresentParticiple"}
    },
    "4": {
      "title": "Conditional",
      "1": {"Simple": "would infinitive"},
      "2": {"Perfect": "would have englishPastParticiple"},
      "3": {"Continuous": "would be combinedPresentParticiple"},
      "4": {"Perfect Continuous": "would have been combinedPresentParticiple"}
    }
  }
}

The secondary titles would be used as the header within the sub-conjugation tables. I don't think contractually getting words like "will", "would", etc makes sense as that's a lot of processing for something that we can just include in the contract 🤔 Let me know what you think, and thanks for all the questions here! :) :)

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-01T15:38:16Z

Sound Good. I would make the changes and update the PR accordingly. This would mean that we would be using a different system entirely for English if I assume right. Would such a system be used for any other languages as the project would continue ?

I would have to modify the contract extraction a bit. Should I hardcode it for English language and the subsequent workflow for only English or should I attempt to make it work for all cases.

andrewtavis · 2025-05-01T15:44:47Z

I'd make it work for all cases if you can :) Specifically as well, this way of going through the conjugation menus is how it works for pronoun declension views for German and Russian. This data is hard coded as we're not getting it from Wikidata (not enough to not just hard code it), but maybe the way that we move through the menus could be reused, and for this we could also make a "declension contract" with all the values hard coded and the resulting button labels just coming from the values of the contract directly rather than being read into a table?

By declension btw I'm talking the work for #276 :) In German if you say "for me" or "with me", then "me" is different because it's a different case for "for" and "with". Same with "for the" and "with the", and this is multiplied for all of the various versions of "the" for the genders. The table for this works the exact same as English verbs, where we just select one option and others are shown after.

As far as other verbs from other languages, I'd be amazed if we didn't need to do this again. There certainly are going to be some languages that have very simple verb conjugation, but maybe one form that's a bit weird, so we could use this in this case :)

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-01T15:54:58Z

It makes sense to make all languages follow the same workflow then. I would work on it and make an updated PR soon :)
Would ask queries here incase any come up

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-01T16:03:23Z

To maintain simplicity. Would it make sense to make all the contracts of the same format. By this I mean that the English would be considered as a base and other language would have similar formats. I am not sure if this has any disadvantages. I would share an example below.

Existing DE contract

"conjugations": {
        "1": {
            "title": "Präsens",
            "1": { "ich": "indicativePresentFirstPersonSingular" },
            "2": { "du": "indicativePresentSecondPersonSingular" },
            "3": { "er/sie/es": "indicativePresentThirdPersonSingular" },
            "4": { "wir": "indicativePresentFirstPersonPlural" },
            "5": { "ihr": "indicativePresentSecondPersonPlural" },
            "6": { "sie/Sie": "indicativePresentThirdPersonPlural" }
        },
        "2": {
            "title": "Preterite",
            "1": { "ich": "indicativePreteriteFirstPersonSingular" },
            "2": { "du": "indicativePreteriteFirstPersonPlural" },
            "3": { "er/sie/es": "indicativePreteriteSecondPersonSingular" },
            "4": { "wir": "indicativePreteriteSecondPersonPlural" },
            "5": { "ihr": "indicativePreteriteThirdPersonSingular" },
            "6": { "sie/Sie": "indicativePreteriteThirdPersonPlural" }
        },
        "3": {
            "title": "Perfekt",
            "1": { "ich": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple" },
            "2": { "du": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple" },
            "3": { "er/sie/es": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple" },
            "4": { "wir": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple" },
            "5": { "ihr": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple" },
            "6": { "sie/Sie": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple" }
        }
    }

Modified DE contract

"conjugations": {
    "1": {
        "title": "Präsens",
        "1": {
            "title": "Präsens",
            "Simple": {
                "ich": "indicativePresentFirstPersonSingular",
                "du": "indicativePresentSecondPersonSingular",
                "er/sie/es": "indicativePresentThirdPersonSingular",
                "wir": "indicativePresentFirstPersonPlural",
                "ihr": "indicativePresentSecondPersonPlural",
                "sie/Sie": "indicativePresentThirdPersonPlural"
            }
        }
    },
    "2": {
        "title": "Preterite",
        "1": {
            "title": "Preterite",
            "Simple": {
                "ich": "indicativePreteriteFirstPersonSingular",
                "du": "indicativePreteriteFirstPersonPlural",
                "er/sie/es": "indicativePreteriteSecondPersonSingular",
                "wir": "indicativePreteriteSecondPersonPlural",
                "ihr": "indicativePreteriteThirdPersonSingular",
                "sie/Sie": "indicativePreteriteThirdPersonPlural"
            }
        }
    },
    "3": {
        "title": "Perfekt",
        "1": {
            "title": "Perfekt",
            "Perfect": {
                "ich": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                "du": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                "er/sie/es": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                "wir": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                "ihr": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                "sie/Sie": "[auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple"
            }
        }
    }
}

My idea would be to make use to the title and the nested json length to have a workflow universally for all so that even if data gets added on later on we would be able to not do a lot of code changes.

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-01T16:06:20Z

If the above wouldn't make sense for a lot of languages. I would have 2 data formats that could be used for data-contracts and we could exchange or fall back between the 2 type of contracts to act accordingly.

andrewtavis · 2025-05-01T16:46:05Z

Might make sense to have it work in both ways? I'm thinking in terms of Scribe-Conjugate right now as well where for that app we likely would be doing a 3x2 for English as we'll just have all the forms in a scrollable view? Does that make sense? I agree for the language keyboards we want it to be simple, but for the conjugation I think it makes sense to display the whole field and not have any of this internal menu functionality. In this way we can directly use the base functionality that we already have for the Android conjugate app? This would make it easier to have both in the same repo, where the base functionality for contract parsing could actually be shared?

Open to your thoughts here though!

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-02T09:49:19Z

So should I make the current implementation exist.

Have a check if the data contract extraction based on the current implementation fails for any language and use the second implementation I would be doing now.

My only suggestion wouldn't it be better to have a single data-contract extraction method and then follow it throughout. and modify the data extraction from the extracted contract for the apps a little differently. Would love to hear your thoughts 😄

andrewtavis · 2025-05-02T10:17:44Z

Yes sorry, this makes sense. The conjugate apps could also use the contracts with the sub-view method and we just wouldn't use sub-views :) Let's plan on making all the contracts have the sub views as you mentioned here!

Appreciate your suggestions! 😊

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-02T12:35:57Z

So the final decision is to modify the existing contract conjugation parts and accordingly modify the data classes for the overall contract and unify the extraction process right for all languages. Happy to make some initial changes to the contracts and push it here so that you can check it out and make further changes.

andrewtavis · 2025-05-02T14:19:02Z

Yes I'd say that makes the most sense :) Thanks, @angrezichatterbox!

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-06T12:55:50Z

There is no combinedPastParticiple column in the database right how would be handle it.

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-06T13:10:25Z

Also I did try to get the contract done but I am facing some difficulties in understanding on how the structure should be formatted. Could I get some more example of other languages.

andrewtavis · 2025-05-06T17:44:28Z

There is no combinedPastParticiple column in the database right how would be handle it.

The data from Scribe-Android is likely outdated. We can shift over the data soon, but for the time being do you want to use pastParticiple?

andrewtavis · 2025-05-06T17:48:57Z

Also I did try to get the contract done but I am facing some difficulties in understanding on how the structure should be formatted. Could I get some more example of other languages.

Maybe we can do a call to check this sometime this weekend? I could do a call on Thursday as it's a holiday here, or Friday earlier :) Generally what I was expecting is that we'll do the nested structure for all of them, so each would be like your example above:

    "1": {
        "title": "Präsens",
        "1": {
            "title": "Präsens",
...

This for all of the data contracts :)

Is there a specific language where you're not sure how it should work?

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-07T12:44:29Z

There is no combinedPastParticiple column in the database right how would be handle it.

The data from Scribe-Android is likely outdated. We can shift over the data soon, but for the time being do you want to use pastParticiple?

Okay temporary I would use the past-participle instead of using combinedPastParticiple

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-07T12:45:35Z

Also I did try to get the contract done but I am facing some difficulties in understanding on how the structure should be formatted. Could I get some more example of other languages.

Maybe we can do a call to check this sometime this weekend? I could do a call on Thursday as it's a holiday here, or Friday earlier :) Generally what I was expecting is that we'll do the nested structure for all of them, so each would be like your example above:
    "1": {
        "title": "Präsens",
        "1": {
            "title": "Präsens",
...
This for all of the data contracts :)

Is there a specific language where you're not sure how it should work?

I would try to do it by tonight and ask queries if I have any

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-07T15:21:25Z

I have updated the contracts for all languages except Swedish as I am not sure of how to deal it in the case of Swedish yet. I would love to have some help on it.

andrewtavis · 2025-05-09T11:24:39Z

Sorry for the wait on the reply here, @angrezichatterbox! So looking at the current Swedish verbs contract, it looks like I didn't include the pronouns. We just have active and passive tenses for Swedish, which each of those just having a few forms for present, preterite past and supine. Filling in the pronouns, it looks like it would be:

    "conjugations": {
        "1": {
            "title": "Aktiv",
            "1": { "imperativ": "imperative" },
            "2": { "presens": "activePresent" },
            "3": { "dåtid": "activePreterite" },
            "4": { "liggande": "activeSupine" }
        },
        "2": {
            "title": "Passiv",
            "1": { "infinitiv": "passiveInfinitive" },
            "2": { "presens": "passivePresent" },
            "3": { "liggande": "passivePreterite" },
            "4": { "liggande": "passiveSupine" }
        }
    }

For active we don't do the infinitive as it's just the verb. There are other conjugations that we can add in later :) From there we'd have the extra layer of the object as you've been doing for the others 😊

Let me know if there's anything else I can do to support here! :)

angrezichatterbox · 2025-05-09T13:14:47Z

Okay I would make it like that.

Would a similar structure to this makes sense for English as well.

 "conjugations": {
    "1": {
      "title": "Präsens",
        "conjugationTypes": {
            "1": {
                "title": "Präsens",
                "conjugationForms": {
                    "ich": "indicativePresentFirstPersonSingular",
                    "du": "indicativePresentSecondPersonSingular",
                    "er/sie/es": "indicativePresentThirdPersonSingular",
                    "wir": "indicativePresentFirstPersonPlural",
                    "ihr": "indicativePresentSecondPersonPlural",
                    "sie/Sie": "indicativePresentThirdPersonPlural"
                }
            }
        }
    },
    "2": {
      "title": "Preterite",
        "conjugationTypes": {
            "1": {
                "title": "Preterite",
                "conjugationForms": {
                    "ich": "indicativePreteriteFirstPersonSingular",
                    "du": "indicativePreteriteFirstPersonPlural",
                    "er/sie/es": "indicativePreteriteSecondPersonSingular",
                    "wir": "indicativePreteriteSecondPersonPlural",
                    "ihr": "indicativePreteriteThirdPersonSingular",
                    "sie/Sie": "indicativePreteriteThirdPersonPlural"
                }
            }
        }
    },
    "3": {
      "title": "Perfekt",
        "conjugationTypes": {
            "1": {
                "title": "Perfekt",
                "conjugationForms": {
                    "ich": "[indicativePresentFirstPersonSingular auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                    "du": "[indicativePresentSecondPersonSingular auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                    "er/sie/es": "[indicativePresentThirdPersonSingular auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                    "wir": "[indicativePresentFirstPersonPlural auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                    "ihr": "[indicativePresentSecondPersonPlural auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple",
                    "sie/Sie": "[indicativePresentThirdPersonPlural auxiliaryVerb] pastParticiple"
                }
            }
        }
    }
  }

My idea would be to use the length of the number conjugationTypes to decide the conjugation table to be used.

andrewtavis · 2025-05-09T13:21:30Z

100% the number of connotations should determine the table :) Mot sure how much more it matches aside from that, but it'll make it much easier if the conjugation count determines the table 😊

angrezichatterbox requested a review from andrewtavis April 29, 2025 16:01

This was linked to issues Apr 29, 2025

[Conjugation, Epic] Add functionality to switch conjugation views #268

Open

[Conjugation] Insert a conjugation when a conjugation key is pressed #270

Open

angrezichatterbox added 10 commits May 6, 2025 17:51

feat:Implement function for key label changes from services

ace3e77

feat:Modify the data contracts for en and de

139665f

feat:Implement the conjugate functions in the database helper

c9423ce

feat:Show word and form in the command hint bar

1196694

feat:Get conjugate labels and conjugate data from sqlite database

0d3b87c

feat:Add Conjugate functions for switch the conjugate depending on forms

98c618f

feat:Implement the conjugate functons for setting keyboard labels

11169be

feat:Implement the label change in the views and add constants

b4ce53e

feat:Implement the conjugate top small number and swedish change

6d84a8d

feat:Implement returning of conjugate labels when the label is clicked

f9406b7

angrezichatterbox force-pushed the feat/switch-conjugate branch from 9281137 to 60c380c Compare May 7, 2025 15:20

feat:Update the contracts to the new format

25ef439

angrezichatterbox force-pushed the feat/switch-conjugate branch from 60c380c to 25ef439 Compare May 7, 2025 15:23

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Implement Conjugation view and insertion on click of the labels #391

Implement Conjugation view and insertion on click of the labels #391

angrezichatterbox commented Apr 29, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 29, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 29, 2025 •

edited by andrewtavis

Loading

andrewtavis commented Apr 29, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented Apr 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewtavis commented Apr 29, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented Apr 30, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 1, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 1, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewtavis commented May 2, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 2, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 2, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 6, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 6, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewtavis commented May 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 7, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 7, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 7, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 9, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewtavis commented May 9, 2025

Implement Conjugation view and insertion on click of the labels #391

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Implement Conjugation view and insertion on click of the labels #391

Conversation

angrezichatterbox commented Apr 29, 2025

Contributor checklist

Description

Related issue

github-actions bot commented Apr 29, 2025

Thank you for the pull request! ❤️

github-actions bot commented Apr 29, 2025 • edited by andrewtavis Loading

Maintainer Checklist

andrewtavis commented Apr 29, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented Apr 29, 2025 • edited Loading

andrewtavis commented Apr 29, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented Apr 30, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 1, 2025 • edited Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 1, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025 • edited Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 1, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 2, 2025 • edited Loading

andrewtavis commented May 2, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 2, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 2, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 6, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 6, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 6, 2025 • edited Loading

andrewtavis commented May 6, 2025 • edited Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 7, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 7, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 7, 2025

andrewtavis commented May 9, 2025

angrezichatterbox commented May 9, 2025 • edited Loading

andrewtavis commented May 9, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 29, 2025 •

edited by andrewtavis

Loading

angrezichatterbox commented Apr 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewtavis commented May 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewtavis commented May 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

andrewtavis commented May 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angrezichatterbox commented May 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading