Closed
Bug 1374088
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
"Screenshot behavior" camera icon on Toolbox options is not correctly aligned
Categories
(DevTools :: General, defect, P5)
Tracking
(firefox56 verified)
VERIFIED
FIXED
Firefox 56
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox56 | --- | verified |
People
(Reporter: majed.rifat, Assigned: Towkir)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 3 obsolete files)
144.08 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
1.59 KB,
patch
|
Towkir
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
OS:Ubuntu 16.04 ,64Bit! Build ID 20170618100241 User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 STR: 1.Open the Developer Tools 2.Go to Toolbox options 3. look at "Screenshort behavior " camera icon Actual result : "Screenshort behavior " camera icon is not correctly aligned. Expected result: "Screenshort behavior " camera icon should correctly aligned.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
There was a previous bug regarding this icon. bug 1334126 Rev: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/da8fb81b4038#l2.12 I have some thoughts on this. Why are we using a (disabled) button when it is never going to be clicked. I mean, span was a good idea, we could style the span. On another thought, do we really need this ? Jryans, do you plan to put icons beside other options titles? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1334126#c3 Otherwise, why keep this one ? Tim, any suggestions on this ?
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to [:Towkir] Ahmed from comment #1) > There was a previous bug regarding this icon. bug 1334126 > Rev: > https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/da8fb81b4038#l2.12 > > I have some thoughts on this. Why are we using a (disabled) button when it > is never going to be clicked. I mean, span was a good idea, we could style > the span. You could use the ::after pseudo element and stop relying on the .devtools-button class. ...::after { content: ""; display: inline-block; background-image: url(...); width: 16px; height: 16px; } > On another thought, do we really need this ? I wouldn't remove it now until we have a new spec > Jryans, do you plan to put icons beside other options titles? > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1334126#c3 > Otherwise, why keep this one ? There were plans by Helen to redesign the options panel, but I'm not sure what's the status now.
Flags: needinfo?(ntim.bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Tim Nguyen :ntim from comment #2) > You could use the ::after pseudo element and stop relying on the > .devtools-button class. > ...::after { > content: ""; > ............... > height: 16px; > } Use ::after on which node / id / class ? there is a DOM structure like: <legend xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Screenshot Behavior <button id="screenshot-icon" disabled="true" class="devtools-button"></button> </legend>
(In reply to [:Towkir] Ahmed from comment #1) > I have some thoughts on this. Why are we using a (disabled) button when it > is never going to be clicked. I mean, span was a good idea, we could style > the span. > > On another thought, do we really need this ? > > Jryans, do you plan to put icons beside other options titles? > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1334126#c3 > Otherwise, why keep this one ? I believe the idea was to help build a mental link between the icon and the meaning in the section header. However, I haven't heard of plans to do with other section headers. I agree with :ntim that it's probably fine to leave it in there for now until there is new design spec for options. It would be great to fix the alignment. Also, was it always the disabled gray color? I can't remember now...
Flags: needinfo?(jryans)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
Hey Tim, That is the least changes done to achieve the alignment. Looks good on my local build, I am confused about the view on windows (could not check) Previously I found it a bit more misaligned on windows, Feedback requested. If it is good to go, you can review too.
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8879614 [details] [diff] [review] camera-icon.patch Review of attachment 8879614 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: devtools/client/framework/options-panel.css @@ +115,3 @@ > } > > +#screenshot-options legend::after { Seems like the indentation on this block is off. It uses tab indentation when it should use 2 spaces. @@ +115,4 @@ > } > > +#screenshot-options legend::after { > + content: ''; nit: use double quotes @@ +116,5 @@ > > +#screenshot-options legend::after { > + content: ''; > + display: inline-block; > + background-image: url('chrome://devtools/skin/images/command-screenshot.svg'); nit: use double quotes @@ +121,5 @@ > + width: 16px; > + height: 16px; > + position: absolute; > + top: 5px; > + left: calc(100% + 5px); Can we not use absolute positioning ? I would largely prefer using margin-inline-start: 5px; and vertical-align ::: devtools/client/framework/toolbox-options.xhtml @@ +113,1 @@ > </legend> This fits in one line now: <legend>&options.screenshot.label;</legend>
Attachment #8879614 -
Flags: feedback?(ntim.bugs)
Summary: "Screenshort behavior " camera icon on Toolbox options is not correctly aligned → "Screenshot behavior" camera icon on Toolbox options is not correctly aligned
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Looks like "vertical-align: bottom" aligns it more appropriately than "vertical-align: middle" Hope this helps.
Attachment #8879614 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8879824 -
Flags: review?(ntim.bugs)
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8879824 -
Flags: review?(ntim.bugs) → review?(bgrinstead)
Comment 9•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8879824 [details] [diff] [review] camera-icon-alignment.patch Forwarding to Gabe, who I believe has been looking into the options UI lately
Attachment #8879824 -
Flags: review?(bgrinstead) → review?(gl)
Comment 10•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8879824 [details] [diff] [review] camera-icon-alignment.patch Review of attachment 8879824 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: devtools/client/framework/options-panel.css @@ +115,5 @@ > + display: inline-block; > + background-image: url("chrome://devtools/skin/images/command-screenshot.svg"); > + width: 16px; > + height: 16px; > + vertical-align: bottom; When I appear a 1px solid red border around the legend, "vertical-align: sub;" seems to look best in terms of centering. Otherwise, I would remove the vertical-align and do margin-bottom: -2px, but this seems equivalent to "sub". I think this is due to how the svg is laid out since I would typically go with "vertical-align: middle;". I think going with the "vertical-align: sub;" is your best bet. r+ with changes to make it more centered.
Attachment #8879824 -
Flags: review?(gl) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•7 years ago
|
||
should I submit the patch again with "vertical-align: sub;" ? looks like you've r+ed, if I make the changes and submit again, I should r+ myself and add checkin-needed. right ?
Flags: needinfo?(gl)
Comment 12•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to [:Towkir] Ahmed from comment #11) > should I submit the patch again with "vertical-align: sub;" ? > looks like you've r+ed, if I make the changes and submit again, I should r+ > myself and add checkin-needed. right ? I would re-upload the new patch with the changes, and carry over the r+ by r+'ing it yourself and add a checkin-needed. Once a patch is r+, it doesn't need a new review because the changes that are recommended are usually somewhat trivial and would not need another review. So, you can carryover any r+ at that point. Thanks for the patch again Towkir!
Flags: needinfo?(gl)
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•7 years ago
|
||
Here is the updated patch
Attachment #8879824 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8885588 -
Flags: review+
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
has conflicts when trying to land on inbound: patching file devtools/client/framework/options-panel.css Hunk #1 FAILED at 109 1 out of 1 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file devtools/client/framework/options-panel.css.rej patching file devtools/client/framework/toolbox-options.xhtml Hunk #1 FAILED at 108 1 out of 1 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file devtools/client/framework/toolbox-options.xhtml.rej patch failed, unable to continue (try -v) patch failed, rejects left in working directory errors during apply, please fix and qrefresh camera-icon-alignment.patch
Flags: needinfo?(3ugzilla)
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 16•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8885588 [details] [diff] [review] camera-icon-alignment.patch Review of attachment 8885588 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Please change the commit message to include the bug number and r=gl instead of r=ntim
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•7 years ago
|
||
I think I had some issues with my mercurial setup on earlier patch. Here is the updated one.
Attachment #8885588 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Flags: needinfo?(3ugzilla)
Attachment #8885799 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 18•7 years ago
|
||
Pushed by gabriel.luong@gmail.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9b778f1f3c2d camera icon on 'Screenshort behavior' label is now correctly aligned; r=gl
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 19•7 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9b778f1f3c2d
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
status-firefox56:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 56
Comment 20•7 years ago
|
||
I have reproduced this bug with Nightly 56.0a1 (2017-06-18) on Windows 8.1 , 64 Bit ! This bug's fix is verified with latest Nightly 56.0a1 ! Build ID 20170714030205 User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0
QA Whiteboard: [bugday-20170712]
Updated•7 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Updated•6 years ago
|
Product: Firefox → DevTools
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•