Open bmuenzenmeyer opened 8 years ago
cc @geoffp pertaining to your current PR
Hello, I was just preparing to record an issue for this hidden pattern bug and found this. What's the status for this topic? As the merge request obviously failed in Oct 2016 - are there any plans to fix it? I think it is a very visible error which needs to be fixed.
The impact of the current erroneous behaviour is:
Should I create a new issue for this? Or is it maybe already on some roadmap? Thanks!
@dmolsen do you have input on whether or not hidden patterns should be displayed within lineage, or if so, whether or not they should be navigable?
@bradfrost do you have any input on this from your client or personal work?
@bradfrost do you have any input on this from your client or personal work?
In my opinion, the lineage should show hidden patterns. It's important to understand there are patterns that undergird the visible patterns. The hiding patterns feature was created mainly to shield clients and other stakeholders from some of the more nitty-gritty patterns that only really made sense in a bigger context. We didn't want them to get overwhelmed by seeing a massive array of components. But those patterns are still useful and important to the working team.
Seeking Clarification According to http://patternlab.io/docs/pattern-hiding.html, hidden patterns may be included in other patterns, but they will not be accessible from the navigation.
Should a user of Pattern Lab be able to reach this pattern using lineage, however?
Here is a screenshot for reference, where
{{> atoms-hidden-button}}
is prefixed with an underscore in the filesystem, does work as included, but is accessible via lineage.The timeline for this clarification is not time-sensitive. It was brought up inside https://github.com/pattern-lab/patternlab-node/pull/509 but may be decoupled from it should action be required.
Tagging core and spec-question because I am only hunting for what the cross-platform behavior should be.
/cc @pattern-lab/voting-members