Skip to content

Conversation

@connorjclark
Copy link
Collaborator

Attributes is a type for cssRule in the font-size artifact.

The audit checks for it here.

However, the gatherer never returned a rule of type Attributes. Instead, it was returning no cssRule (that property is optional) - which was fine because the audit handles it in the same way.

First thought was to just remove Attributes from the type property. But then I saw it was pretty simple to change the gatherer to be correct.

But ... it doesn't really convey much more information - just makes it more explicit - so I could go either way with this. The style declaration will look like this:

{ type: 'Attributes',
  range: undefined,
  styleSheetId: undefined,
  parentRule: undefined }

Also: I think this was the only reason cssRule was made optional - or is there another valid reason that it would not exist?

Copy link
Collaborator

@patrickhulce patrickhulce left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suppose this LGTM!

Definitely a bit weird that the font-size audit result is identical whether we identify the style source or not, maybe that should change :)

result = FontSizeGather.getEffectiveFontRule({attributesStyle, inherited});
expect(result).toMatchObject({type: 'Attributes'});

result = FontSizeGather.getEffectiveFontRule({matchedCSSRules, inherited});
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

want to throw attributesStyle in here to test the correct specificity?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

@connorjclark
Copy link
Collaborator Author

connorjclark commented Jul 19, 2019

Definitely a bit weird that the font-size audit result is identical whether we identify the style source or not, maybe that should change :)

In either the Inline or Attributes case, we want to point to the node in the audit table. I'm not sure if doing anything special in Attributes (like annotating the result in the table with <font size=1> (attributes)) is ideal.

also font (the only way Attributes will happen here) is sooooo old should we care about making it look different?

@patrickhulce
Copy link
Collaborator

also font (the only way Attributes will happen here) is sooooo old should we care about making it look different?

fair points, I'm sold :)

Copy link
Member

@exterkamp exterkamp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

Copy link
Contributor

@brendankenny brendankenny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants