Open SkyeSeitz opened 4 months ago
I think we should remove the padding as that makes sense.
I think we still need a UI because we need to wrap and configure the <calcite-input>
. It configures input quite a bit so its not something a dev can just easily do.
We should also just expose the filter utility class at some point.
I could see filter being renamed to something like input-filter
?
I was looking to open a similar issue when I found this one - an additional problem the padding causes is that both the container (with padding) and the filter element use the same variable --calcite-color-foreground-1
for their background color. This means that currently you cannot make the padding transparent but have the filter input background some other color. Removing the padding would also enable easier color customisation.
Would this be considered a visual breaking change?
Would this be considered a visual breaking change?
Depends on the route we take..
Check existing issues
Description
Calcite-filter is documented as a util component, however when inserted, it has UI. Consider removing the ui of
calcite-filter
so it can be used as just a util.Acceptance Criteria
Options to consider:
calcite-filter
and add to components that use it (e.g.calcite-list
)From a designer perspective, it makes the most sense to decouple
calcite-filter
and its visual UI since it is just an input with padding (which is not always needed). Ideally a developer could choose to usecalcite-filter
on an input whether or not it is directly adjacent to the filtered UI elements. When built into other Calcite components, I would expect the padding around the input to come from the parent component at the specifications needed, e.g.calcite-list
, and not prescribe that padding everywherecalcite-filter
is used.Relevant Info
No response
Which Component
calcite-filer
Example Use Case
Filter doesn't align with other input components in a form
Priority impact
p4 - not time sensitive
Calcite package
Esri team
Calcite (design)