[docs] Don't dispatch ignored "reset code variant" actions #27712
Conversation
| @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ export default function DemoToolbar(props) { | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| const handleCodeLanguageClick = (event, clickedCodeVariant) => { | |||
| if (codeVariant !== clickedCodeVariant) { | |||
| if (clickedCodeVariant !== null && codeVariant !== clickedCodeVariant) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Off-topic
Should ToggleButtonGroup enforce to retain the active value when set to exclusive? This demo feels weird https://next.material-ui.com/components/toggle-button/#exclusive-selection, what does no text alignment mean? 😁
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should ToggleButtonGroup enforce to retain the active value when set to
exclusive?
I think the confusion comes from the ambiguity of exclusive. With your proposal exactly one value would have to be selected. The current implementation allows 0 or 1 values to be selected. In other words: With your proposal we could not de-select.
But this doesn't block this PR so I'm just assuming this means approval. Please approve explicitly in the future and generally be more specific in your reviews. They require almost always another round-trip that could've been avoided by explicit messaging.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, agree. I guess if this exclusive pain comes again on the GitHub issues, we could continue the conversion further.
But this doesn't block this PR
@eps1lon You are right.
We were facing a similar pain in the X repo. A couple of weeks ago, in the retrospective, we settled on using Off-topic when we wanted to start discussions on parallel problems that aren't relevant for merging the PR. Sometimes, it's about potentially going after the root cause, others about weird things in the code that was already present, or else.
Please approve explicitly in the future
I'm aiming to approve and request changes on as few PRs as possible so that the maintainers can step in, making myself redundant.
I think that it's also a way for the other members to build up confidence in taking on larger problems. I know that you usually have strong points of view, and a long history contributing to the codebase, but it's not necessarily the case for everybody.
It's also about recognizing that things might not be done as I think should be, so to trust the person who takes the call, and make her/him accountable for the implications.
We default to the previous
codeVariantanyway if we receive a falsycodeVariant. Might as well not dispatch it at all.