From: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Steven Pousty <steve.pousty@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Giraud <pierre.giraud@dalibo.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:04:39 -0400
Message-ID: <ab7803b4-f985-cf3d-267f-38b7311ca917@postgresql.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1c5ca197-f7f2-0300-46ce-4652c7f81d48@postgresql.org>
References: <20200423174343.GA16996@alvherre.pgsql>
<19233.1587665407@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<5561.1587922854@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<13e5e408-bc59-e8ca-44f3-28a981b4fc7d@postgresql.org>
<a47ea348-b9a0-02b7-5bcb-7a32143dd16f@postgresql.org>
<11211.1587951842@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<58de9544-be5b-f325-b5cc-cce4e2dda7d9@postgresql.org>
<5651.1587991781@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<b998a672-2525-1cba-ac64-b292f495919e@postgresql.org>
<30469.1588087170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<8682.1588202983@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4894cde4-148d-f0cc-d6d8-182a46f13e1b@postgresql.org>
<06f6b32d-a4cc-3723-5bc1-00fa674df961@postgresql.org>
<11106.1588205727@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1c5ca197-f7f2-0300-46ce-4652c7f81d48@postgresql.org>
On 4/29/20 9:22 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 4/29/20 8:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>>> On 4/29/20 7:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>>> I'll compromise on the temporary importants, but first I want to see
>>>> what's causing the need for it. Do you have a suggestion on a page to test?
>>
>> I haven't yet pushed anything dependent on the new markup, but
>> attached is a draft revision for the JSON section; if you look at
>> the SRFs such as json_array_elements you'll see the issue.
^ This was super helpful. Built locally, and made it really easy to
test. Thanks!
>>> From real quick I got it to here. With the latest copy of the doc builds
>>> it appears to still work as expected, but I need a section with the new
>>> "pre" block to test.
>>
>> Yeah, I see you found the same <p> and <pre> settings I did.
>>
>>> I think the "background-color: inherit !important" is a bit odd, and
>>> would like to trace that one down a bit more, but I did not see anything
>>> obvious on my glance through it.
>>
>> I think it's coming from this bit at about main.css:660:
>>
>> pre,
>> code,
>> #docContent kbd,
>> #docContent tt.LITERAL,
>> #docContent tt.REPLACEABLE {
>> font-size: 0.9rem !important;
>> color: inherit !important;
>> background-color: #f8f9fa !important;
>> border-radius: .25rem;
>> margin: .6rem 0;
>> font-weight: 300;
>> }
>>
>> I had to override most of that.
>
> Yeah, I had started toying with that and saw no differences, but I would
> need to test against anything in particular. I'm pretty confident we can
> remove those importants, based on my desultory testing.
>
> I'll try and get the patch built + docs loaded, and see if we can safely
> remove those.
Please see latest attached. I've eliminated the !important, condensed
the CSS, and the desultory (yes, my word of the week) testing did not
find issues in devel or earlier versions.
Please let me know if this works for you. If it does, I'll push it up to
pgweb.
Jonathan
Attachments:website-style-v4.patch (text/plain, 1.3K) downloaddiff --git a/media/css/main.css b/media/css/main.cssindex 08ca255..07963f2 100644--- a/media/css/main.css+++ b/media/css/main.css@@ -625,7 +625,7 @@ ul.actions {
}
#docContent p {
- margin-bottom: 1rem !important;+ margin-bottom: 1rem;
}
#docContent hr {
@@ -648,7 +648,7 @@ ul.actions {
}
#docContent pre {
- padding: 0.8rem !important;+ padding: 0.8rem;
}
pre,
@@ -658,7 +658,7 @@ code,
#docContent tt.REPLACEABLE {
font-size: 0.9rem !important;
color: inherit !important;
- background-color: #f8f9fa !important;+ background-color: #f8f9fa;
border-radius: .25rem;
margin: .6rem 0;
font-weight: 300;
@@ -799,6 +799,24 @@ code,
text-align: left;
}
+#docContent table.table th.func_table_entry p,+#docContent table.table td.func_table_entry p {+ margin-top: 0.1em 0 0.1em 0;+ padding-left: 4em;+ text-align: left;+}++#docContent table.table p.func_signature {+ text-indent: -3.5em;+}++#docContent table.table td.func_table_entry pre.programlisting {+ background-color: inherit;+ border: 0;+ margin: 0.1em 0 0.1em 0;+ padding: 0 0 0 4em;+}+
/**
* Titles, Navigation
*/
@@ -1059,7 +1077,7 @@ i.fas.fa-search {
pre {
padding: 0.8rem;
border: 1px solid #ced4da;
- margin: 1rem 0 !important;+ margin: 1rem 0;
}
pre.code {
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: jkatz@postgresql.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, steve.pousty@gmail.com, pavel.stehule@gmail.com, isaac.morland@gmail.com, pierre.giraud@dalibo.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-Reply-To: <ab7803b4-f985-cf3d-267f-38b7311ca917@postgresql.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox