Skip to content

XWIKI-23496: Date facet unexpected layout when enough space #4688

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 26, 2025
Merged

XWIKI-23496: Date facet unexpected layout when enough space #4688

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 26, 2025
+3 −0

Conversation

@Sereza7
Copy link
Contributor

@Sereza7 Sereza7 commented Oct 20, 2025

Jira URL

https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-23496

Changes

Description

  • Added a style to avoid the unexpected layout at very high viewport width.

Clarifications

  • By making the width relative to the parent size, we make sure the form will take its own column in the facet display. This way, we avoid having the weird display that was showcased in the issue description.
  • It slightly moved the form even in regular conditions, but IMO it's alright and it makes it clearer that the form is under the checkbox in the hierarchy. See the screenshots below

Screenshots & Video

Here are a couple of pairs of screenshots of the impacted UI. I just searched the page string on my default instance and selected the custom date range picker to see this:
Before the PR:
extra large viewport
Screenshot from 2025-10-20 11-07-05
regular viewport
image

After the PR:
extra large viewport
Screenshot from 2025-10-20 11-08-18
regular viewport
image

Executed Tests

Manual tests, see above.
This is a low impact style only change (low importance on a very limited scope) so I figured it wouldn't have any impact on docker or functional tests.

Expected merging strategy

  • Prefers squash: Yes
  • Backport on branches:
    • None.

@Sereza7
XWIKI-23496: Date facet unexpected layout when enough space
9b91517 
* Added a style to avoid the unexpected layout at very high viewport width.
@Sereza7 Sereza7 requested a review from michitux October 29, 2025 10:49
michitux
michitux approved these changes Oct 30, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@michitux michitux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The centering looks strange to me, I'm not against a little indentation but maybe rather use an explicit indentation based on the regular indentation sizes we use (I hope we have some kind of grid system for that?) and calculate the width based on that?

From a technical perspective this looks okay, so I'm requesting a review from @tkrieck for the design aspect.

@michitux michitux requested a review from tkrieck October 30, 2025 11:29
@tkrieck
Copy link
Contributor

tkrieck commented Oct 30, 2025

The centering looks strange to me, I'm not against a little indentation but maybe rather use an explicit indentation based on the regular indentation sizes we use (I hope we have some kind of grid system for that?) and calculate the width based on that?

Agreed, although I think we don't have a grid system for spacing yet. But maintaining the fields aligned to the start of the line (left in this case) and with a fixed width will make things more predictable.

@Sereza7
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sereza7 commented Nov 14, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Here is a demonstration of the responsiveness of this UI change:

2025-11-14.15-41-34.mp4

I used the width of the checkbox as a left-padding (in px). This way, the field stays aligned with the text above no matter what.
Note that using px and % together could result in weird results, but these facets are never displayed on very small-width viewport so we're clear of any unbeknownst sideeffect here :)

Comments addressed in d4c2214 👍

@michitux michitux merged commit 752d998 into xwiki:master Nov 26, 2025
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@michitux michitux michitux approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@tkrieck tkrieck tkrieck left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@michitux michitux

Labels

backport stable-17.10.x

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@Sereza7 @tkrieck @michitux