Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 11, 2024. It is now read-only.

Group common declarations of mx_AppsDrawer--2apps and mx_AppsDrawer--3apps #11108

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

luixxiul
Copy link
Contributor

@luixxiul luixxiul commented Jun 17, 2023

For element-hq/element-web#25268

This PR intends to group common declarations of mx_AppsDrawer--2apps and mx_AppsDrawer--3apps to improve maintainability.

Those class names were originally added by 7be5ff0 for a PR #5266 which initially implemented a pinned widget, and there does not seem to be a specific reason why "nth-child(3)" was applied for each class name. It also seems there was not a reason why '33%' was picked instead of 100%/3 to count 1%.

0

type: task

Signed-off-by: Suguru Hirahara [email protected]

Checklist

  • Tests written for new code (and old code if feasible)
  • Linter and other CI checks pass
  • Sign-off given on the changes (see CONTRIBUTING.md)

This change is marked as an internal change (Task), so will not be included in the changelog.

luixxiul added 2 commits June 17, 2023 05:16
…3apps

Those class names were originally added by 7be5ff0 for a PR which initially implemented a pinned widget, and there does not seem to be a specific reason why "nth-child(3)" was applied for each class name.
@github-actions github-actions bot added Z-Community-PR Issue is solved by a community member's PR T-Task Refactoring, enabling or disabling functionality, other engineering tasks labels Jun 17, 2023
@luixxiul luixxiul marked this pull request as ready for review June 17, 2023 05:50
@luixxiul luixxiul requested a review from a team as a code owner June 17, 2023 05:50
@luixxiul luixxiul requested review from richvdh and artcodespace June 17, 2023 05:50
Copy link
Contributor

@germain-gg germain-gg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't understand the need to use 2apps and 3apps at all?

mx_AppsDrawer is a flex container, so why not give mx_AppTiles elements flex: 1; so they take one fraction of the available space?
Setting the width seems extraenous in this scenario? And I definitely do not see a use for the --2apps and --3apps modifiers. An app wide search did not yield any result either

@luixxiul
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gsouquet please ask @t3chguy as he's the one who implemented it with 7be5ff0. I'm not the one who adds it newly

@luixxiul luixxiul closed this Jun 19, 2023
@luixxiul luixxiul deleted the AppsDrawer branch June 19, 2023 09:21
@germain-gg
Copy link
Contributor

I understand you're not the one who implemented it originally. However you're updating this behaviour and I'm giving you a review based on the diff I have in front of me.

If we're going to change the layout code, might as well leverage the flex property. This seems like a fair ask in this context.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
T-Task Refactoring, enabling or disabling functionality, other engineering tasks Z-Community-PR Issue is solved by a community member's PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants