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

editor: Use a small multiselect buffer zone #2695

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 20, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@youknowriad
Contributor

youknowriad commented Sep 7, 2017

fixes #2646

I'm not sure why this buffer zone exists in the first place, but making it smaller makes it a better experience IMO.

@youknowriad youknowriad self-assigned this Sep 7, 2017

@youknowriad youknowriad requested review from karmatosed, aduth and iseulde Sep 7, 2017

@codecov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@codecov

codecov bot Sep 7, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #2695 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2695   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   33.16%   33.16%           
=======================================
  Files         182      182           
  Lines        5530     5530           
  Branches      963      963           
=======================================
  Hits         1834     1834           
  Misses       3130     3130           
  Partials      566      566
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
editor/modes/visual-editor/block-list.js 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f9b7923...75bac22. Read the comment docs.

codecov bot commented Sep 7, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #2695 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2695   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   33.16%   33.16%           
=======================================
  Files         182      182           
  Lines        5530     5530           
  Branches      963      963           
=======================================
  Hits         1834     1834           
  Misses       3130     3130           
  Partials      566      566
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
editor/modes/visual-editor/block-list.js 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f9b7923...75bac22. Read the comment docs.

@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aduth

aduth Sep 7, 2017

Member

Not sure I feel entirely comfortable reviewing something when we don't know the original intent and therefore the impact of the changes 😄

Member

aduth commented Sep 7, 2017

Not sure I feel entirely comfortable reviewing something when we don't know the original intent and therefore the impact of the changes 😄

@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aduth
Member

aduth commented Sep 20, 2017

@aduth aduth referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2017

Closed

Creating and Spliting Lists #2748

@mtias mtias merged commit 687ad8c into master Sep 20, 2017

3 checks passed

codecov/project 33.16% remains the same compared to f9b7923
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details

@aduth aduth deleted the update/smaller-multiselect-buffer branch Sep 20, 2017

@iseulde

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@iseulde

iseulde Sep 20, 2017

Member

I agree with this change. May need more tweaking. @jasmussen suggested setting it really high. back when it was first added, but I agree it's weird on small blocks.

Member

iseulde commented Sep 20, 2017

I agree with this change. May need more tweaking. @jasmussen suggested setting it really high. back when it was first added, but I agree it's weird on small blocks.

@jasmussen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasmussen

jasmussen Sep 25, 2017

Contributor

Definitely tune it if need be. I did suggest setting it SUPER high, because I feel like it's easier to pull back from up high, than the other way around.

Contributor

jasmussen commented Sep 25, 2017

Definitely tune it if need be. I did suggest setting it SUPER high, because I feel like it's easier to pull back from up high, than the other way around.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment