Closed Bug 799440 Opened 13 years ago Closed 13 years ago

Building blocks rules should not conflict with each other

Categories

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Gaia, defect, P2)

ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)
defect

Tracking

(blocking-basecamp:+)

RESOLVED FIXED
blocking-basecamp +

People

(Reporter: alive, Assigned: kaze)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: QARegressExclude)

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

E.g., the confirm.css and the action_menu.css conflicts in https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/blob/master/shared/style/action_menu.css#L74 https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/blob/master/shared/style/confirm.css#L71 Now the only application would use most styles in building blocks is system app. It's a big pain if they have conlicts, because system app itself is too huge to be modified according to unstable BB... c.c. @fabi1cazenave
see https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/pull/5726 I think the only way to avoid these conflicts is to use specific class names. I propose: • `.dialog-action`: title + action selection + accept/dismiss buttons • `.dialog-confirm`: message + accept/dismiss buttons • `.dialog-edit`: edition panel with dialog-like button toolbar • `.dialog-object`: action selection + accept/dismiss buttons We could also use a `.role-*` prefix instead (or any other prefix that would make sense), and apply this prefix to the danger/recommend button classes.
Assignee: nobody → kaze
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
blocking-basecamp: --- → ?
Attached patch patch proposal (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Attachment #669472 - Flags: review?(etienne)
Attachment #669472 - Flags: review?(etienne) → review+
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
FTR, we use a `data-type` attribute rather than `dialog-*` class names.
Reopened for it's reverted in https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/pull/5771 . The original change causes RIL data connection failure as described in bug 800267.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Attached file patch proposal
Attachment #669472 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #670739 - Flags: review?(etienne)
Attachment #670739 - Flags: review?(etienne) → review+
Funny to say that on a BB patch, but 3G is working well!
:-)
Blocking+. If we're shipping the BBs, we must ship them working correctly, since they'll also be used by 3rd party app devs for the lifetime of the v1 product.
blocking-basecamp: ? → +
Priority: -- → P2
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: QARegressExclude
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: