-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.3k
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
[Rating] Fix readOnly + precision combination #19414
[Rating] Fix readOnly + precision combination #19414
Conversation
…ating, from changing it to read only and setting precision to a float number.
Details of bundle changes.Comparing: 5c84559...13da7ec
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have tried to push it a bit further by improving the code previews under the demo. Thanks for looking into it.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I’ll try tonight. You could help me by telling my where to find an example page in the repository where to manually test the Rating component. I’m new to this repository.
…Sent from my iPhone
On 27 Jan 2020, at 10:47, sureshtidbit ***@***.***> wrote:
Please check and marge to the master branch because we all need these changes and solve our read-only rating- precision bug. Thanks
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
just trying to merge your changes with mine
Can you tell me how to merge your changes with mine? I am still getting used to git :) and I wanted to test the rating component in a code sandbox with the combined changes. |
@TommyJackson85 You should be able to sync your local branch with your forked remote branch ( |
@TommyJackson85 Alternatively, you can check the impact on the preview deploy: https://deploy-preview-19414--material-ui.netlify.com/. How is your local setup going? :) |
from the ratings page of the link you provided: https://deploy-preview-19414--material-ui.netlify.com/components/rating/#rating Will try and fix my local setup with your suggested changes and they try and test the Rating component. I haven't gotten much done today because ive been working for 12 hours the last two days. I should be able to try it tomorrow night onwards. Any other suggestions are welcome in the mean time, or feel free to go at it yourself if its a priority to get it done. |
Seems to be down at the moment but usually: If you scroll down to the "Checks" list in this PR you will find a "codesandbox/ci" check. That check builds that are using the build from this PR.
You should also give yourself some rest. Don't ever feel pressured to finish a PR after you've opened it. Just let us know if you need more time and we'll give you more time. |
@eps1lon in which, from package.json dependencies i find: and from demo.js file I find Id like to know, if this sandbox was opened from this link: https://deploy-preview-19414--material-ui.netlify.com/components/rating/#rating I dont know where the building packages are coming from here I guess: |
@TommyJackson85 To answer your questions. The edit button in the documentation doesn't take the version of the documentation into account, it uses master. This means that if you go back to an older major version of the documentation, the demo might not work. This also means that if you open a demo on a potentially future version, it might not work either. Now, regarding how you could test the changes of this pull request in codesandbox, @eps1lon has shared the solution in its previous message. I hope it helps. I had a closer look at the problem, I think that we are good. I'm going ahead. If it needs a follow-up, feels free to take care of it :). Thank you, we appreciate the care! |
Thanks for the feedback Olivier. |
Don't worry, there is no reason to fix all a problem at once, as long as we make continuous small steps forward, it's great. |
Completed the suggested changes from issue #19368 as suggested by @oliviertassinari .
Failed tests still need to be passed / fixed.
Haven't tested this manually yet.
I will be busy the next three days so I won't have much time to work on it. Feel free to work on it in the mean time. Or suggest changes.
Closes #19368