Update Numark-Mixtrack-3-scripts.js

[endcredits33]

Improve Browse knob/button behaviour by allowing focus shift between search, sidebar, and track table with Shift+turn Browse.

Further discussion: #14165

edit(@ronso0)

The below is what I've settled on and I think it works well and minimises usage of the Shift button to create a simpler mapping.

• Turn: scroll through focused library element
• Shift + turn: move focus between search/sidebar/track table
• Press: expand sidebar item or load track (depending on focus)
• Shift + press: minimise/maximise library

[ronso0]

Thank you, this makes sense.

FWIW Shift + turn may also be used to scroll the focused view, and Shift + press does move the focus, but you decided to maximize the library with that, which is fine given the limited buttons on the Mixtrack3.
However, this alternative mappin would be a good candidate for controller settings. If you're interested working on this (in another PR), let me know.

And the usual paperwork:
Please sign the Mixxx Contributor Agreement and comment here when you have done so. It gives us permission to distribute your contribution under the GPL v2 or later license and the Apple Mac App Store. It is also helpful for us to have contact information for contributors in case we may need it in the future.

[ronso0]

Btw mapping improvements and new mappings should target the 'stable' branch (currently 2.5), so please rebase onto 2.5.

[endcredits33]

Thank you - rebased onto 2.5, agreement signed and made the requested update to BrowseKnob as well

[ronso0]

Please check endcredits33#2

[Swiftb0y]

thank you, couple nitpicks

[Swiftb0y]

Suggested change

	In Classic mode the Browse encoder can select items in the sidebar and tracks table only, but independent
	of keyboadr focus.
	In Classic mode the Browse encoder can select items in the sidebar and tracks table only, but independent
	of keyboard focus.

[Swiftb0y]

you can remove this part entirely if you do the below instead

[ronso0]

What's the benefit of querying the settings each time compared to this const?

[Swiftb0y]

simplicity. As long as its not done in a tight loop, querying the setting should not be expensive. Doing all of this mapping is unnecessarily weird IMO. Additionally, global consts in mappings are kind off iffy (can suddenly break other things due to the way JS modules work, so thats why its always been encouraged to only add properties to the controller object instead of the global one).

[ronso0]

Hmokay.
tight loop = called at high frequency?

So NumarkMixtrack3.libraryMode = engine.getSetting().. would be okay?
And settings is not an object of NumarkMixtrack3 here, right?

[Swiftb0y]

tight loop = called at high frequency?

Yes.

So NumarkMixtrack3.libraryMode = engine.getSetting().. would be okay?

Yes, better than the current one... But I won't insist on this.

[Swiftb0y]

Suggested change

	if (LibraryMode === libraryModes.focus) {
	if (engine.getSetting("libraryMode") === "focus") {