-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
Add version filtering option to the lint list #8752
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Could we use the unicode signs for Things to consider:
(As always with those PRs: I don't know any JS/CSS, I just want that it looks pretty 😄 ) |
I really like this suggestion, some highlighting that a filter is active would still be nice IMO. Could you add a filter counter to the dropdown button, like the other filter options already display? 🙃
I think it fits with the other search options. Do you have another design in mind? There were some clips with a new version box for searching, but that looked a bit off to me. Another option could be to support direct searches in the search box, for strings "unwrap <= 1.50.0" but I doubt that may people will try that. You should receive a full review by the end of the weekend 🙃 |
I'll have to see how our deploy scripts works, but it should be fine from what I remember. I would be interested on what the benefit is. Doesn't this mean that it has to first load the I know that it's common practice to do this, and I'm fine with it. For me, this is just a tool that has to work well 😂 😅 |
It looks like the file is fetched and executed when the script tag is reached by the parser (https://html.spec.whatwg.org/images/asyncdefer.svg). It shouldn't have any real effect, it just makes the site easier to work on. Also, I already updated the deploy script. I'll be sure to give it a test, but it should be fine. |
In that case it should be fine 🙃 |
BTW, since you're already working on the website, would you mind taking a look at #7959. That might be a good feature for a follow-up. The implementation was already started in #8473, which was closed due to inactivity. I would really love to have that feature. If you had the time and motivation, I would appreciate it. 🙃 |
Yeah, I had the same concern. Just wanted to bring up the idea.
Yes exactly. That way, you have to type less and can't really put any garbage in the text field that the JS then would have to deal with. |
Oh yeah I'd really like to have that too, I'll try that out.
I'll try that out, but I'm worried that'll make the input really small and difficult to hit when on mobile. Here's what I have so far, is anything missing? (The filter count badge only shows up above a certain width so it doesn't make the button touch the edge of the box) |
The height of the text box doesn't change with this. As for the width, you can keep that at a certain minimum size. I think always having to type out |
Makes sense 👍 I'll send a demo on Zulip by tomorrow. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've looked over a previous version, these comments should still be valid, though. I'll do a final review soon (Currently, I'm a bit sick 😅 )
Thank you for your patience, my week has been very busy. This is definitely on my todo list for the weekend. 🙃 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
util/gh-pages/index.html
Outdated
#version-filter-count { | ||
display: none; | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it looks a bit weird, that only the version number disappears. I also feel like a with of 412 is super rare. My browser didn't allow making the window that small. Therefore, I would remove this css rule :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was testing how it looked on mobile through Firefox dev tools, and that was the width of the first device I saw. I don't know how accurate it is, I just really didn't like seeing the filter count go out of bounds 😅.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know any mobile phone that has such a small screen size. Therefore, I would drop this filter. In the worst case it'll wrap sooner :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As it happens my phone (Nexus 5X) has a CSS width of 412px 😄
CSS pixels are multiplied by the device pixel ratio, so for phones the number will be smaller than you'd expect
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ahh, I forgot about that, thanks for pointing that out. In that case, I would still prefer the filters to wrap earlier rather than removing the count indicator. Especially since the other counters stay. Would that change be alright with you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the 2
in the screenshot above? Yeah sounds good to me for consistency
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that's the 2
the other filters have a similar indicator :)
IDK, it's better than wrapping, but the removed padding is also a bit weird. I would be okay with it, if this is only used when the screen is too small |
I shrunk the padding rather than remove it entirely. It'll wrap on widths < 405px now. |
The count is only showing active filters, so since <= is invalid it's only going to count >=. |
Ahh, is it possible to add some highlighting what filter is active? |
I think that number of active filters is a good enough indicator, seeing it drop when you put something invalid in. |
I don't find it that obvious TBH, I actually though that this was accidental. But I also feel like I'm a bit too nit-picky this is a solid improvement and I probably just went a bit overboard 😅 So thank you very much for this update and for addressing all my comments. I appreciate it! 🙃 Let's see if the deployment works as intended (testing in production, there was actually one time, where I broke the website for solid 12 Hours. I've messed something up and couldn't fix it since I didn't have r+ privileges, that was... fun. I'm getting sidetracked, Edit: I don't want to imply that this will break anything. This story just came to mind :)). @bors r+ |
📌 Commit f112e4d has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
I'm no web dev, so I don't know if this is the best execution 😄.
Here's how it looks:
And on mobile:
I've split this into two commits, in the second one I moved the JS into its own file to make it easier to work on. Is that alright? And if so, could the same thing be done to the css?
changelog: none
cc: #7958, @repi
r? @xFrednet