Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[JENKINS-69359] Code Mirror textbox autosizing is broken #7010

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 4, 2022

Conversation

benebsiny
Copy link
Contributor

@benebsiny benebsiny commented Aug 17, 2022

See JENKINS-69359.

The original method was to get the html textarea's height and apply it to the codemirror. Now we count the line of the content and the line height and multiply them, then preserve 30px space at the bottom of the codemirror textarea.

Screnshot

Proposed changelog entries

  • Fix autosizing of CodeMirror textbox

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

  • (If applicable) Jira issue is well described
  • Changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developer, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood. Examples
    • Fill-in the Proposed changelog entries section only if there are breaking changes or other changes which may require extra steps from users during the upgrade
  • Appropriate autotests or explanation to why this change has no tests
  • New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadoc, as appropriate.
  • New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO") if applicable.
  • New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content-Security-Policy directives (see documentation on jenkins.io).
  • For dependency updates: links to external changelogs and, if possible, full diffs

Desired reviewers

@mention

Maintainer checklist

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

  • There are at least 2 approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change
  • Conversations in the pull request are over OR it is explicit that a reviewer does not block the change
  • Changelog entries in the PR title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood
  • Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically
  • If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the PR title. (example)
  • If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

@daniel-beck daniel-beck added the security-approved @jenkinsci/core-security-review reviewed this PR for security issues label Aug 17, 2022
@daniel-beck daniel-beck self-requested a review August 17, 2022 17:22
@NotMyFault NotMyFault added the regression-fix Pull request that fixes a regression in one of the previous Jenkins releases label Aug 23, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Please take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request. Thanks!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the unresolved-merge-conflict There is a merge conflict with the target branch. label Aug 25, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the unresolved-merge-conflict There is a merge conflict with the target branch. label Aug 25, 2022
@basil basil added the squash-merge-me Unclean or useless commit history, should be merged only with squash-merge label Aug 25, 2022
@basil basil requested review from timja and janfaracik August 29, 2022 20:46
@basil
Copy link
Member

basil commented Sep 3, 2022

@janfaracik Are you interested in reviewing this PR? It resolves a regression from #6259.

Copy link
Member

@timja timja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tested and works fine for me

@timja timja requested review from a team September 3, 2022 21:44
Copy link
Member

@NotMyFault NotMyFault left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks reasonable

@timja
Copy link
Member

timja commented Sep 3, 2022

/label ready-for-merge


This PR is now ready for merge, after ~24 hours, we will merge it if there's no negative feedback.

Thanks!

@comment-ops-bot comment-ops-bot bot added the ready-for-merge The PR is ready to go, and it will be merged soon if there is no negative feedback label Sep 3, 2022
@basil basil merged commit 5d00c9e into jenkinsci:master Sep 4, 2022
@basil
Copy link
Member

basil commented Sep 4, 2022

Manually verified as of commit 3673959

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready-for-merge The PR is ready to go, and it will be merged soon if there is no negative feedback regression-fix Pull request that fixes a regression in one of the previous Jenkins releases security-approved @jenkinsci/core-security-review reviewed this PR for security issues squash-merge-me Unclean or useless commit history, should be merged only with squash-merge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants