-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
Failed builds should use :cross_mark: rather than ❌ #26
Comments
@tbroyer thanks for the feedback! What integration are you seeing us using |
Oh, sorry, I missed the repository was the Jenkins plugin. Sorry for the confusion! Yes, this sounds like a good change. |
Want to submit a PR? I imagine @butchyyyy will review/merge and then get a release to happen. |
While the ❌ emoji used to be x in a red box in Zulip 2.x, it was replaced with green box in Zulip 3.x and was not suitable to communicate failed builds anymore. The borderless :cross_mark: replacement will also align better with the :check_mark: used for successful builds.
Just released version 1.2.1 that replaces the emoji for failed builds as proposed by @tbroyer . Should be available via Jenkins update center in few hours. Thanks for reporting! |
Thank you! On a side note, here in France, I reported the issue at 6pm 🕡 just after I saw my build failure notification in our Zulip instance at work, it was fixed and released by midnight 🕛 🚀, and a coworker installed it this morning even before I started working 🕣 🎉 |
With Zulip's "Google modern" emoji theme (which I think is the default), in Zulip 3.1, the
:x:
displays as a cross in a green box (seems to match Android 10: https://emojipedia.org/google/android-10.0/cross-mark-button/, Android 9 and Android 11 had/have a red cross in a black-bordered white box, looking like what was displayed in Zulip 2.x)I'd suggest using
:cross_mark:
instead, which is more consistently displayed in red: https://emojipedia.org/cross-mark/Moreover, a successful build uses
:check_mark:
, which is not in a box: https://emojipedia.org/check-mark/ so it would be more consistent.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: