It has always been largely used for showcasing UI elements but that name didn't work too well for it.
Testing:
Some of existing tests depend on these pages, making it redundant to create extra tests.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11019
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
- Replace the [Monaco Editor](https://microsoft.github.io/monaco-editor/)
with [CodeMirror 6](https://codemirror.net/). This editor is used to
facilitate the 'Add file' and 'Edit file' functionality.
- Rationale:
- Monaco editor is a great and powerful editor, however for Forgejo's
purpose it acts more like a small IDE than a code editor and is doing
too much. In my limited user research the usage of editing files via
the web UI is largely for small changes that does not need the
features that Monaco editor provides.
- Monaco editor has no mobile support, Codemirror is very usable on mobile.
- Monaco editor pulls in large dependencies (for language support) and
by replacing it with Codemirror the amount of time that webpack needs
to build the frontend is reduced by 50% (~30s -> ~15s).
- The binary of Forgejo (build with `bindata` tag) is reduced by 2MiB.
- Codemirror is much more lightweight and should be more usable on
less powerful hardware, most notably the lazy loading is much faster
as codemirror uses less javascript.
- Because Codemirror is modular it is much easier to change the
behavior of the code editor if we wish to.
- Drawbacks:
- Codemirror is quite modular and as seen in `package.json` and in
`codeeditor.ts` we have to supply a lot more of its features to have
feature parity with Monaco editor.
- Monaco editor has great integrated language support (features that
an lsp would provide), Codemirror only has such language support to an
extend.
- Monaco editor has its famous command palette (known by many as its
also available in VSCode), this is not available in code mirror.
- Good to note:
- All features that was added on top of the monaco editor (such as
dynamically changing language support depending on the filename)
still works and the theme is based on the VSCode colors which largely
resembles the monaco editor.
- The code editor is still lazy-loaded (this is painfully clear by
reading how imports are passed around in `codeeditor.ts`).
- This change was privately tested by a few people, a few bugs were
found (and fixed) but no major drawbacks were noted for their usage of
the web editor.
- There's a "search" button in the top bar, so that search can be used
on mobile. It is otherwise only accessible via
<kbd>Ctrl</kbd>+<kbd>f</kbd>.
Co-authored-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10559
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Webkit and Mobile safari are comically unreliable, will fail for unexplainable reasons and are very hard to run locally in comparison with the other supported platforms. I do not remember the last time where these two platforms were able to catch a regression where the other platforms did not.
I would like to stress, for the historical record, that many hours has been devoted into adjusting the tests and following best practices to make these two platforms more stable but despite those, IMO wasted, efforts these two platforms are causing many hours of wasted CPU time simply because they are flaky and make (new) contributors nervous if their change contains a regression or not.
To my knowledge, the tests are not broken for these two platforms. If you go to the issue tracker you will not find issues by users that use these two platforms and report that Forgejo is broken. It does not reflect reality.
This is the sunk cost fallacy, bite the bullet and agree that these platforms will not contribute positively to Forgejo's excellent test suite.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10103
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
* Add some test that only snapshot relevant content
* Allow adding marging around the element in case the environment is relevant (e.g. the location of an element relative to the parent, but excluding the environment of the parent)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9499
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Otto Richter <git@otto.splvs.net>
Co-committed-by: Otto Richter <git@otto.splvs.net>
- The current implementation for modals is provided by fomantic UI.
- This patch introduces a new implementation that relies on the `<dialog>` element to provide modal, whereby the heavy lifting is done by the browser.
- This implementation is considerably simpler, accessible (although untested) and lightweight. It is capable of replacing fomantic UI's modal implementation + our dimmer implementation (~2k lines of code and CSS).[^1] As a first step the empty content modal is migrated.
- This brings in the CSS needed to display `<dialog>` and a helper function that hides some boilerplate code that's needed to show `<dialog>` as a modal.
- Add a E2E test that shows the modal's cancel and approve button works.
[^1]: The heavy work has already been done by me in a local branch, but reviewing that gigantic patch in one PR is not doable.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8859
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
