Skip to content

Footer h4 semantics#1150

Closed
madmanlear wants to merge 59 commits into
uswds:18f-pages-stagingfrom
madmanlear:footer-h4-semantics
Closed

Footer h4 semantics#1150
madmanlear wants to merge 59 commits into
uswds:18f-pages-stagingfrom
madmanlear:footer-h4-semantics

Conversation

@madmanlear

@madmanlear madmanlear commented May 9, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Link lists in the big footer included an h4 as a direct child of a ul, and this is not allowed.

  • Wrapped footer h4 in li to comply with semantics
  • Updated styles to suit

Resolves issue #794

mollieru and others added 26 commits September 25, 2015 17:41
Deploy release v0.8 aka: Colin and the Pattern Ladies
Deploy release v0.8.1 to production
Link the word "Sass" to the Sass project's website.
Deploy release v0.8.2 to production
Updating Draft USWDS to v0.8.3 release
Switch to using .18f-pages.yml
Deploy release v0.9.0 to production
Deploy v0.9.0 to production
Deploy release v0.9.0 to production
Deploy documentation update to releases branch
Deploy v0.9.1 to production
Add CircleCI config to master, pointed to gsa-wds org
Preparation for release v0.9.2
@msecret

msecret commented May 9, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hi @madmanlear thanks for the PR! First off, could you run the build process and commit some of the compiled files? It should just be npm install && npm run build. I think these files should have changes and should be checked in:

        modified:   dist/css/uswds.css
        modified:   dist/css/uswds.min.css
        modified:   dist/css/uswds.min.css.map

Second, the first <li> now needs a little bit of bottom margin to stay consistent with what's current on the site. I think this is due from it changing from an <h> to a <li>. You can see the difference if you compare the space between "Topic"'s and "Secondary link"'s on your branch vs https://standards.usa.gov/footers. I took a look and I think it needs this:

.usa-footer-primary-link {
   margin-bottom: .8rem;
}

Besides those two things, this is looking good for a merge.

@madmanlear

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hey @msecret thanks for your feedback! You'll find these changes in the latest commit.

@msecret

msecret commented May 10, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This looks good for me, @maya wanna take a look? Also, @madmanlear there are merge conflicts now probably because of other things I've been merging in this afternoon. You'll likely have to rebase and run the build again when you get merge conflicts. I can also open up another branch and do that for you if it helps, I'm very used to it by now.

@madmanlear

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@msecret I think I did it correctly but if not I'd love a breakdown of the process you use. Thanks!

Marco Segreto and others added 13 commits May 17, 2016 12:21
This will let us ignore the whole docs/assets folder
This allows us to ignore the whole assets directory

Also updates gitignore to reflect that change
This new flow is
- Copy one js, all fonts and images from `dist` to `docs/assets`.
- Copy all from `docs/docs_assets/` to `doc/assets`.
- Run through rest of build, everything should exist now in
  `docs/assets/`.
- These mixins are removed in Bourbon 5.0
- Autoprefixer will automatically add prefixes where needed
This patch reverts @tysongach's work on removing bourbon prefixes. The
reason for this revert is that these styles are a part of the
documentation site and not the actual package. Once we update to version
5.0 of Bourbon, we will need to revisit this. But because the
autoprefixer runs in the `gulp` asset pipeline and not in the `jekyll *`
pipeline, implementing this now is non-trivial.
Add autoprefixer to `gulp` asset pipeline
[Website]: Move title line instruction inside comment
@maya

maya commented May 18, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@madmanlear for some reason, I just checked and this branch looks like it's missing the accordion links on mobile (could it be related to our big repo change?):

screen shot 2016-05-18 at 12 20 35 pm

And it also looks misaligned:
screen shot 2016-05-18 at 12 20 43 pm

I have not been able to check on the your previous responses bc of the above.

@madmanlear

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@maya Sorry about those issues! I can't replicate on my end, but I've rebased again to make sure my branch is up to date with staging. Let me know if the issue persists!

@maya

maya commented May 18, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@madmanlear the rebase fixed it, thanks!

@maya

maya commented May 18, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@madmanlear sorry for the trouble again, it's hard to review bc of the 361 files changed now. I think if this was rebased, we shouldn't show the 361. Would you be able to do that? Or resubmit it if that easier?

@madmanlear

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@msecret Could you provide some guidance on this issue? I rebased as instructed, but if that is causing the issue @maya is having (and I see it too) then I can revert or make a new PR so she can review just what's changed.

@msecret

msecret commented May 20, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@madmanlear I'll guide you through what I did to clear up these conflicts, and hopefully that will work.

git checkout 18f-pages-staging
git fetch upstream
git rebase upstream/18f-pages-staging
git checkout footer-h4-semantics
git rebase 18f-pages-staging
# You'll get merge conflicts here, likely about certain files being deleted
git status
# Check the status, this will show you what files are in conflict, likely about files in the dist directory
git rm -rf  dist
# You might want to check status again here and make sure all files are "added", or are green.
git rebase --continue
# At this point, you may or may not get more merge conflicts. If you do, try git rm and rebase continue in exact same way as above.

Let me know if this works. You should ideally have only a few files changed in the src/stylesheets dir.

@rogeruiz

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@madmanlear Adding to what @msecret posted above ☝️

I did a local rebase from your branch on madmanlear/footer-h4-semantics onto
our current 18f-pages-staging and found that there only be six commits
reflecting your changes.

The six commits are as follows:

648d93b wrap big footer h4 in li
 docs/_components/footers.md | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
42c1960 remove top margin from h4 in big footer
 src/stylesheets/components/_footer.scss | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
8373b72 fix footer primary link formatting
 src/stylesheets/components/_footer.scss | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
5c95c28 src: fix primary link spacing on desktop
 src/stylesheets/components/_footer.scss | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
d727a34 remove top margin from h4 in big footer
 src/stylesheets/components/_footer.scss | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
cb5ee11 fix footer primary link formatting
 src/stylesheets/components/_footer.scss | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

If you'd like to rebase your commits onto 18f-pages-staging one more time, you
are more than welcome to. You need to be careful to discard any commits made to the
docs/ and dist/ generated files. These changes aren't related to other files
you may have changed in the docs/ directory.

Here's a shell history of the commands I ran to clear those commits.

: 1464006881:0;git co madmanlear/footer-h4-semantics
: 1464006894:0;git co -b footer-h4-semantics
: 1464006915:0;git rebase origin/18f-pages-staging
: 1464006930:0;git rm -r --cached dist
: 1464006943:0;git rebase --skip
: 1464006967:0;git rm docs/assets/js/vendor/uswds.min.js
: 1464007072:0;rm -rvf dist
: 1464006981:0;git rebase --skip
: 1464007033:0;git add src/stylesheets/components/_footer.scss
: 1464007083:0;git rebase --skip

When rebasing your changes onto 18f-pages-staging you will need to make sure
that any files or directories that are going to conflict such as the dist/
directory or the docs/assets/js/vendor/uswds.min.js file get deleted. Then,
during the git rebase you'll need to proceed by skipping those commits using
git rebase --skip.

I've pushed up another branch with your changes in this PR #1183. Feel welcome
to comment, add to via a PR, or rebase this PR with the instructions above.

Thanks for you contributions, @madmanlear! 🎉

@maya

maya commented May 23, 2016

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closing in favor of #1183.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.