- Issue created by @lauriii
- Assigned to jessebaker
- First commit to issue fork.
- 🇦🇺Australia larowlan 🇦🇺🏝.au GMT+10
@lauriii is that screenshot correct - its the same one as #3460955
- 🇦🇺Australia larowlan 🇦🇺🏝.au GMT+10
Ah I see, same screenshot, different feature, ignore me
- Assigned to bnjmnm
- Status changed to Needs review
about 2 months ago 12:54pm 17 July 2024 - Issue was unassigned.
- Status changed to Needs work
about 2 months ago 6:39pm 17 July 2024 - 🇺🇸United States bnjmnm Ann Arbor, MI
Although we're waiting to take care of a few e2e things in gitlab, component/unit tests are working fine and these should get at least surface level testing
- Assigned to jessebaker
- 🇧🇪Belgium Wim Leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
- 🇬🇧United Kingdom jessebaker
I've taken a stab at making a Cypress component test - I'm not sure how to get around how much fake/boilerplate code I had to wrap it all in to make it work though.
Perhaps a candidate to replace with a proper e2e test at some point.
- Assigned to bnjmnm
- Status changed to Needs review
about 2 months ago 1:03pm 18 July 2024 - 🇬🇧United Kingdom jessebaker
Current status:
Due to the overlap in functionality (regarding positioning the UI elements over components in the preview), the code in the MR for this issue (!93) was used as the base for !99 which is addressing #3460952 📌 Implement add button for top level item (section) Fixed .
That means that once !99 is approved and merged, this work will also be merged in as part of that.
Or, if this MR gets approved, it can be merged first independently.
- 🇧🇪Belgium Wim Leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
So based on #14, it sounds like it doesn't matter which lands first:
- this MAY land before 📌 Implement add button for top level item (section) Fixed , which would require that one to be rebased
- if #3460952 lands first, then this issue can be marked obsolete
That first bullet is preferable, because it makes the individual MRs/commits to
0.x
simpler.Is that right?
- Status changed to Needs work
about 2 months ago 6:38pm 24 July 2024 - 🇺🇸United States bnjmnm Ann Arbor, MI
The automated tests prompted me to run a manual A11y check on on the page
There is an AA contrast violation on
div:nth-child(1) > ._previewContainer_14ww3_31 > ._xbComponentToolbar_lmyju_17.rt-Box[data-state="closed"] > ._nameTag_1uhn3_1._selected_1uhn3_11
on
<div class="_nameTag_1uhn3_1 _selected_1uhn3_11">
(obviously these are hashed classnames but it is safe to assume they are part of the NameTag component introduced in this issue.
- First commit to issue fork.
- Status changed to Needs review
about 2 months ago 9:51pm 24 July 2024 - Issue was unassigned.
-
bnjmnm →
committed 8c034376 on 0.x authored by
jessebaker →
Issue #3460783 by jessebaker, bnjmnm, larowlan: Implement component...
-
bnjmnm →
committed 8c034376 on 0.x authored by
jessebaker →
- Status changed to Fixed
about 1 month ago 1:28pm 25 July 2024 Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.