Skip to content
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

Fix code view (diff) broken layout #23096

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 4, 2023
Merged

Conversation

wxiaoguang
Copy link
Contributor

@wxiaoguang wxiaoguang commented Feb 23, 2023

Close #22911

I think it's ready for review now, feel free to test it, welcome to help to improve.

Before

image

After

image

@wxiaoguang wxiaoguang marked this pull request as draft February 23, 2023 15:50
@wxiaoguang wxiaoguang changed the title Demo for fixing code view (diff) broken layout Fix fixing code view (diff) broken layout Apr 1, 2023
@wxiaoguang wxiaoguang marked this pull request as ready for review April 1, 2023 03:27
@wxiaoguang wxiaoguang changed the title Fix fixing code view (diff) broken layout Fix code view (diff) broken layout Apr 1, 2023
@silverwind
Copy link
Member

Make sure to test the code expansion via these buttons:

Screenshot 2023-04-01 at 05 35 53

This stuff is sensitive to column number.

@GiteaBot GiteaBot added the lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. label Apr 1, 2023
@wxiaoguang
Copy link
Contributor Author

Make sure to test the code expansion via these buttons:

Yes, I have tested, that's in blob_excerpt.tmpl

@jpraet
Copy link
Member

jpraet commented Apr 1, 2023

Thanks @wxiaoguang. I have done some testing and it looks like this fixes the problem without any noticeable regressions.

So, functionally it works as expected. I don't feel experienced enough with html / css to approve the PR myself from the technical point of view though.

@wxiaoguang
Copy link
Contributor Author

Since it works, I hope I can receive a LGTM from you later. No hurry, take enough time to test till you feel it works really well.

And no worry, I will fix all bugs caused by me.

@delvh delvh added this to the 1.20.0 milestone Apr 1, 2023
@delvh delvh added type/bug topic/ui Change the appearance of the Gitea UI outdated/backport/v1.19 This PR should be backported to Gitea 1.19 labels Apr 1, 2023
@GiteaBot GiteaBot added lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. and removed lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. labels Apr 2, 2023
@GiteaBot GiteaBot added lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. and removed lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. labels Apr 3, 2023
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #23096 (9cfec6d) into main (f521e88) will decrease coverage by 47.15%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 9cfec6d differs from pull request most recent head 617eca9. Consider uploading reports for the commit 617eca9 to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #23096       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   47.14%        0   -47.15%     
===========================================
  Files        1149        0     -1149     
  Lines      151446        0   -151446     
===========================================
- Hits        71397        0    -71397     
+ Misses      71611        0    -71611     
+ Partials     8438        0     -8438     

see 1149 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

@lunny lunny added the reviewed/wait-merge This pull request is part of the merge queue. It will be merged soon. label Apr 4, 2023
@lunny lunny merged commit d149093 into go-gitea:main Apr 4, 2023
@lunny lunny removed the reviewed/wait-merge This pull request is part of the merge queue. It will be merged soon. label Apr 4, 2023
GiteaBot pushed a commit to GiteaBot/gitea that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2023
@GiteaBot GiteaBot added the backport/done All backports for this PR have been created label Apr 4, 2023
@wxiaoguang wxiaoguang deleted the code-view-layout branch April 4, 2023 11:09
6543 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2023
Backport #23096 by @wxiaoguang

Close #22911

I think it's ready for review now, feel free to test it, welcome to help
to improve.

### Before


![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2114189/220958734-06871615-b498-4143-8449-3d443f08ffaa.png)

### After


![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2114189/220958621-0dce2728-57b8-4a1f-ac5d-48c7c2d42f5c.png)

Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
zjjhot added a commit to zjjhot/gitea that referenced this pull request Apr 5, 2023
* giteaoffical/main:
  Fix image border-radius (go-gitea#23886)
  [skip ci] Updated translations via Crowdin
  Scroll collapsed file into view (go-gitea#23702)
  docs: make the required backticks in email password more explicit (go-gitea#23923)
  docs: fix typo (go-gitea#23924)
  Update docs markdown file weight to make it clear (go-gitea#23909)
  Add activity feeds API (go-gitea#23494)
  Fix code view (diff) broken layout (go-gitea#23096)
  Use ghost user if package creator does not exist (go-gitea#23822)
  Org pages style fixes (go-gitea#23901)
  User/Org Feed render description as per web (go-gitea#23887)
@go-gitea go-gitea locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 1, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
backport/done All backports for this PR have been created lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. outdated/backport/v1.19 This PR should be backported to Gitea 1.19 topic/ui Change the appearance of the Gitea UI type/bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Code diff UI goes misalignment with code review comments
8 participants