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

Prerequisite tree right-to-left progression is confusing #3202

Open
taneliang opened this issue Jan 26, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Prerequisite tree right-to-left progression is confusing #3202

taneliang opened this issue Jan 26, 2021 · 5 comments

Comments

@taneliang
Copy link
Member

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Some module pages (example) have prerequisite trees, where a given modules' dependents and prerequisites are displayed on the module's left and right respectively. However, this is counter-intuitive to people who expect a left to right progression.

30FD5527-AFF8-46D4-98BD-D78081C8796E

Describe the solution you'd like

We should probably flip the tree to show dependents on the right.

Describe alternatives you've considered

@li-kai any idea why we did it this way?

@taneliang taneliang changed the title Prerequisite tree right-to-left dependency is confusing Prerequisite tree right-to-left progression is confusing Jan 26, 2021
@li-kai
Copy link
Member

li-kai commented Feb 18, 2021

I think the original thinking is people want to know the dependencies rather than the dependents. You're right, it's a little confusing to display it this way. Top to bottom is more intuitive but it's hard to do in css.

@sciffany
Copy link
Contributor

sciffany commented Mar 4, 2021

I'd like to take this issue please #3263

@alvynben
Copy link

hey @schalkneethling do you mind if I take this up? I think I've created a working version with reverse ordering.

@alvynben
Copy link

I've created a pull request for this issue above.

@chrisgzf
Copy link
Member

Hey @alvynben, thanks for the contribution! However since @sciffany already has a working implementation in #3263, we'll review her version first. (I think there was a miscomm somewhere above.) If you'd like to, you can review her PR too! I'm going to close your PR first to avoid confusion (we can reopen it again if the need arises). Sorry about that!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants