Closed boney-bun closed 5 years ago
Merging #507 into 2.8.x will decrease coverage by
0.07%
. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 2.8.x #507 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 56.53% 56.45% -0.08%
==========================================
Files 47 47
Lines 2517 2517
Branches 282 282
==========================================
- Hits 1423 1421 -2
- Misses 1020 1022 +2
Partials 74 74
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
signals.py | 85.93% <0%> (-3.13%) |
:arrow_down: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 739245f...af8a26b. Read the comment docs.
screenshot / gif?
it must stay in the screen and have max width and height
screenshot:
in the gif above, the max width is 300px and max height is 100px only for demo purposes. the actual max height and max width is 300px. the UI will be something like:
what do you think @gubuntu ?
LGTM
we should do this too for the other lists (exposure, hazard and aggregation) since they could also get quite long.
I agree all the list boxes should look and behave the same as each other
one comment: I saw that the impact-list box dynamically placed a few pixels upper than the impact button (depends on the number of impact layer). wouldn't it be better if we placed it right next to the impact button (just like the input layers) if we have implemented this scroll-able box? cc @gubuntu @lucernae
@gubuntu @myarjunar I'm not sure what you meant by this, but just reply if I'm commenting about different things. The impact-list box header should be above impact button (unlike input layers), because this button is located at the bottom. In a smaller screen, if we use the same behaviour as input layers, there is not enough space to list the content vertically. I think the current behaviour is fine (bottom of impact-list box should line up with bottom of impact button).
thanks @gubuntu @myarjunar @lucernae
i'm going to merge this. i've created another issue (#510) for other modal windows. i think we can continue the discussion in #510.
fix #506