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: Reuse the tabbable utility to retrieve the tabbables elements in WritingFlow #2696

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 16, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@youknowriad
Contributor

youknowriad commented Sep 7, 2017

this reuses the tabbable utility to ensure a more robust arrow navigation.

Testing instructions

  • Ensure arrow navigation across blocks is working as intended (same as master)

I'm finding that the button block works better now, it used to be a caret trap but seems to work now.

@youknowriad youknowriad self-assigned this Sep 7, 2017

@youknowriad youknowriad requested a review from aduth Sep 7, 2017

@codecov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@codecov

codecov bot Sep 7, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #2696 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2696      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   33.64%   33.65%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         185      185              
  Lines        5584     5583       -1     
  Branches      973      972       -1     
==========================================
  Hits         1879     1879              
  Misses       3138     3138              
+ Partials      567      566       -1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
editor/writing-flow/index.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 c6ceb8b...5ea104c. Read the comment docs.

codecov bot commented Sep 7, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #2696 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2696      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   33.64%   33.65%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         185      185              
  Lines        5584     5583       -1     
  Branches      973      972       -1     
==========================================
  Hits         1879     1879              
  Misses       3138     3138              
+ Partials      567      566       -1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
editor/writing-flow/index.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 c6ceb8b...5ea104c. Read the comment docs.

Show outdated Hide outdated editor/writing-flow/index.js Outdated
@aduth

aduth approved these changes Sep 7, 2017

Discussed 1-to-1: This seems an improvement, but it's not clear to me the specific behavior we want for arrow navigations, since in some but not all cases we want the block to receive focus (i.e. when there aren't other input fields within). Or at least this is how it appears from the user's perspective. In reality, the block receives focus but then the editable takes over and steals focus to it. I think in a subsequent pull request we might want to consider consolidating this (from Editable to WritingFlow?) and being more explicit about where arrow keys should land focus for the user.

@youknowriad youknowriad merged commit 27b4555 into master Sep 16, 2017

3 checks passed

codecov/project 33.65% (+<.01%) compared to c6ceb8b
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details

@gziolo gziolo deleted the update/use-tabbable-util-in-writing-flow branch May 7, 2018

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