Remove bool flag for jump_to commands

[exbluesbreaker]

Describe your changes

Issue ticket number and link if any

Checklist for finalizing the PR

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have added tests for new features and bugfixes
• I have added documentation for new features
• If it is a modifying the libf3d API, I have updated bindings
• If it is a modifying the .github/workflows/versions.json, I have updated docker_timestamp

AI Disclosure

• I did not use AI to generate any of the content of that pull request
• I used AI to generate code in that pull request, if yes please disclose which part of the code was generated and with which model.
• ...

Continuous integration

Please write a comment to run CI, eg: \ci fast.
See here for more info.

[exbluesbreaker]

\ci full

[exbluesbreaker]

@mwestphal Rework for bool flag in jump_to commands

[snoyer]

how about jump_by_* instead of jump_to_*_relative? It'd be more concise and symmetrical with jump_to_*. Or is that too subtle?

[exbluesbreaker]

how about jump_by_* instead of jump_to_*_relative? It'd be more concise and symmetrical with jump_to_*. Or is that too subtle?

Honestly, I do not like it, having relative seem more clear to me. "Linguistic shenanigans" with using different kind of prepositions meaning different things seems confusing. @mwestphal what do you think?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.07%. Comparing base (537f127) to head (b9bd351).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3250      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.06%   97.07%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         212      212              
  Lines       17570    17640      +70     
==========================================
+ Hits        17054    17124      +70     
  Misses        516      516              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[mwestphal]

how about jump_by_* instead of jump_to_*_relative? It'd be more concise and symmetrical with jump_to_*. Or is that too subtle?

Honestly, I do not like it, having relative seem more clear to me. "Linguistic shenanigans" with using different kind of prepositions meaning different things seems confusing. @mwestphal what do you think?

no strong opinion. @Meakk ?

[mwestphal]

how about jump_by_* instead of jump_to_*_relative? It'd be more concise and symmetrical with jump_to_*. Or is that too subtle?

Honestly, I do not like it, having relative seem more clear to me. "Linguistic shenanigans" with using different kind of prepositions meaning different things seems confusing. @mwestphal what do you think?

thinking back on it, i prefer it being explicit

[exbluesbreaker]

@mwestphal Added MIGRATION.md update

[Meakk]

I prefer jump_to_*_relative too. A bit more verbose but clearer to me.

[exbluesbreaker]

oops, forgot missing test failure, though not sure what is it about

[mwestphal]

oops, forgot missing test failure, though not sure what is it about

Flaky test, you can ignore, @Meakk is looking at it.

[mwestphal]

one last doc change

[exbluesbreaker]

I implemented suggestion

[mwestphal]

Thanks for the contribution @exbluesbreaker !