Search Ideas
2790 ideas match your query.:
Doesn't reproduce as of e71df95. In the app in test/dummy, a form whose action redirects takes one POST and one GET in a headless browser, which a system test now checks.
Probably, and they're fixed. Hiccdown used to force a layout (layout: true, then layout: !request.format.turbo_stream?), overriding the layout method turbo-rails relies on, and turbo-stream requests failed with "no default layout" (fef00cb). cf92f06, in version 1.5.2, stopped forcing a layout. As of c5ce76f and 4a087e4, to be released in version 1.6.0, tests check that frame requests keep Turbo's frame layout and that turbo streams get none, and the app in test/dummy shows it in a browser.
Fixed as of 99b6280, to be released in version 1.6.0.
Mostly, intercepting capture already took care of it: helpers of your own that pass a block on to Rails' helpers, or return Hiccdown, worked. Hiccdown given to Rails' helpers as content didn't, as in content_tag(:div, yield), tag.div([:span, 'foo']) or link_to([:span, 'foo'], path). As of 134deb9, to be released in version 1.6.0, it does.
Yes. As of 4fd7a0e, to be released in version 1.6.0, the layout named X lives in XHelper#layout, just as it would in layouts/X.html.erb, so the application layout lives in ApplicationHelper#layout. yield and yield(:title) work as in an ERB layout, and layout files keep working for a gradual migration.
Fixed as of 31cf174, to be released in version 1.6.0.
Fixed as of 9c46c61, to be released in version 1.6.0.
This works if the tests are identical. What happens if idea A passes test 1 but fails test 2, while idea B passes test 2 but fails test 1?
Rational Decision-Making
It’s rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway? After all, the previous paragraph applies to pending criticisms, too.
See also:
A sticky button can't work here: the main content area has to be a horizontal scroll container so deeply nested trees can grow sideways, and that stops position: sticky from sticking. The workarounds (reworking the global layout, or JavaScript positioning that jitters on mobile) are too risky for such a small benefit.
Tyler suggested (#3904) we use the chart type from Kialo:
Could be a useful visualization in addition to trees.
Each top-level idea would be the center node. Then red segments around it for pending criticisms. Gray for non-pending criticisms and neutral comments.
Unlike Kialo, though, each segment would have the same size as the other segments on its circle.
This says nothing about the yellow color of the criticisms pills, which I think Tyler is saying are too harsh on the eyes.
That doesn’t mean the pill has to stay yellow. Too harsh.
And dimmer red for refuted criticisms, brighter red for pending ones! Default gray for comments.
Would get alternating dim and bright depending on insertion order. Confusing!
And dimmer red for refuted criticisms, brighter red for pending ones! Default gray for comments.
It’s more in line with refute.us if non-pending criticisms are neutralized, ie gray as well.
And dimmer red for refuted criticisms, brighter red for pending ones! Default gray for comments.
Tried it – unfortunately, there aren’t enough shades of red to easily tell the difference.
Best to put additional information in a revision of the target idea, not as a comment. Comments aren’t for chronological addition of information like on X or Reddit.
I have yet to want to open the criticized idea in a new tab
I do that on occasion and like being able to do it. Other users may, too.
Fixed as of 76299a2, see eg https://veritula.com/ideas/3951-done-as-of-cc1ab95-ruby-example-ruby-def/revisions/2. (Click on “Expand unchanged parts”.)