Issue 29567642: Issue 5414 - Add style guide page to help.eyeo.com (Closed)
|
Created:
Oct. 6, 2017, 10:28 a.m. by ire Modified:
Oct. 17, 2017, 3:07 p.m. Reviewers:
juliandoucette Base URL:
https://hg.adblockplus.org/help.eyeo.com Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionIssue 5414 - Add style guide page to help.eyeo.com
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : Update default.tmpl to include .container.content classes #
MessagesTotal messages: 18
Exception: Failed to resolve include styleguide/typography/index on page styleguide/developer
On 2017/10/09 22:43:32, juliandoucette wrote: > Exception: Failed to resolve include styleguide/typography/index on page > styleguide/developer Oh, I'm supposed to update my CMS first :D
I think that we can inherit these pages from website-defaults instead? 1. Place these pages inside website-defaults 2. Load these pages inside this website without adding them to this website 3. (bonus) we could override includes within the website-default pages
On 2017/10/09 22:44:22, juliandoucette wrote: > On 2017/10/09 22:43:32, juliandoucette wrote: > > Exception: Failed to resolve include styleguide/typography/index on page > > styleguide/developer > > Oh, I'm supposed to update my CMS first :D Haha yeah :P
On 2017/10/09 22:47:25, juliandoucette wrote: > I think that we can inherit these pages from website-defaults instead? > > 1. Place these pages inside website-defaults > 2. Load these pages inside this website without adding them to this website > 3. (bonus) we could override includes within the website-default pages Good idea. I've created a ticket to handle this -> https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/5854
On 2017/10/11 17:11:09, ire wrote: > Good idea. I've created a ticket to handle this -> > https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/5854 Are you going to close this and address that ticket instead?
On 2017/10/11 17:54:34, juliandoucette wrote: > On 2017/10/11 17:11:09, ire wrote: > > Good idea. I've created a ticket to handle this -> > > https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/5854 > > Are you going to close this and address that ticket instead? I think I misunderstood how this would work. Are you saying that we can load pages (not just includes) as well?
On 2017/10/12 11:05:47, ire wrote: > I think I misunderstood how this would work. Are you saying that we can load > pages (not just includes) as well? Yes, I think so.
On 2017/10/12 11:10:55, juliandoucette wrote: > On 2017/10/12 11:05:47, ire wrote: > > I think I misunderstood how this would work. Are you saying that we can load > > pages (not just includes) as well? > > Yes, I think so. Looks like you're right! However.. the template that is used is the help center default template, which doesn't look right because there's no .container element and the content doesn't have the .content class. I think we can do 1 of 2 things: 1. Add the classes within the content-styleguide and developer-styleguide pages in wd themselves. This would mean the classes would be applied twice (since they are also in the external template), but from my test this doesn't seem to make much of a difference 2. Move the pages to an include, create pages in this website, and just include the content from the wd include. I think I prefer the former, as it would force a certain level of consistency across all the sites. What do you think?
On 2017/10/12 11:29:39, ire wrote: > On 2017/10/12 11:10:55, juliandoucette wrote: > > On 2017/10/12 11:05:47, ire wrote: > > > I think I misunderstood how this would work. Are you saying that we can load > > > pages (not just includes) as well? > > > > Yes, I think so. > > Looks like you're right! > > However.. the template that is used is the help center default template, which > doesn't look right because there's no .container element and the content doesn't > have the .content class. I think we can do 1 of 2 things: > > 1. Add the classes within the content-styleguide and developer-styleguide pages > in wd themselves. This would mean the classes would be applied twice (since they > are also in the external template), but from my test this doesn't seem to make > much of a difference > 2. Move the pages to an include, create pages in this website, and just include > the content from the wd include. > > I think I prefer the former, as it would force a certain level of consistency > across all the sites. What do you think? Shouldn't the body block be surrounded by .container.content in help.eyeo.com anyway?
On 2017/10/12 13:05:32, juliandoucette wrote: > On 2017/10/12 11:29:39, ire wrote: > > On 2017/10/12 11:10:55, juliandoucette wrote: > > > On 2017/10/12 11:05:47, ire wrote: > > > > I think I misunderstood how this would work. Are you saying that we can > load > > > > pages (not just includes) as well? > > > > > > Yes, I think so. > > > > Looks like you're right! > > > > However.. the template that is used is the help center default template, which > > doesn't look right because there's no .container element and the content > doesn't > > have the .content class. I think we can do 1 of 2 things: > > > > 1. Add the classes within the content-styleguide and developer-styleguide > pages > > in wd themselves. This would mean the classes would be applied twice (since > they > > are also in the external template), but from my test this doesn't seem to make > > much of a difference > > 2. Move the pages to an include, create pages in this website, and just > include > > the content from the wd include. > > > > I think I prefer the former, as it would force a certain level of consistency > > across all the sites. What do you think? > > Shouldn't the body block be surrounded by .container.content in http://help.eyeo.com > anyway? Not really. the .container.content is only used on article pages (or static page). It shouldn't be applied to the .outer element
On 2017/10/12 13:59:48, ire wrote: > Not really. the .container.content is only used on article pages (or static > page). It shouldn't be applied to the .outer element I think that this is a problem with the default template. I think that, ideally, one should be able to write a basic markdown page using the default template without adding any containers. Perhaps the default template should have .container.content and the existing templates should extend minimal and add the contact section themselves or inherit from another template?
On 2017/10/13 12:42:08, juliandoucette wrote: > I think that this is a problem with the default template. I think that, ideally, > one should be able to write a basic markdown page using the default template > without adding any containers. > > Perhaps the default template should have .container.content and the existing > templates should extend minimal and add the contact section themselves or > inherit from another template? Or, for the sake of consistency, we should consider whether we want to (always | never) add containers to content in the default template if we want to inherit website-default pages.
On 2017/10/13 12:46:07, juliandoucette wrote: > Or, for the sake of consistency, we should consider whether we want to (always | > never) add containers to content in the default template if we want to inherit > website-default pages. (Or we could make the addition of a container configurable via frontmatter)
> I think that this is a problem with the default template. I think that, ideally, > one should be able to write a basic markdown page using the default template > without adding any containers. > Perhaps the default template should have .container.content and the existing > templates should extend minimal and add the contact section themselves or > inherit from another template? > Or, for the sake of consistency, we should consider whether we want to (always | > never) add containers to content in the default template if we want to inherit > website-default pages. > Or we could make the addition of a container configurable via frontmatter I think your solution of changing the default template may be the best. So we should agree that default.tmpl will always have the .container.content class, and any page that doesn't want this will have its own template. I will update the templates now.
On 2017/10/16 14:31:43, ire wrote: > > I think that this is a problem with the default template. I think that, > ideally, > > one should be able to write a basic markdown page using the default template > > without adding any containers. > > > Perhaps the default template should have .container.content and the existing > > templates should extend minimal and add the contact section themselves or > > inherit from another template? > > > Or, for the sake of consistency, we should consider whether we want to (always > | > > never) add containers to content in the default template if we want to inherit > > website-default pages. > > > Or we could make the addition of a container configurable via frontmatter > > I think your solution of changing the default template may be the best. So we > should agree that default.tmpl will always have the .container.content class, > and any page that doesn't want this will have its own template. > > I will update the templates now. Done.
LGTM 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
