[CircularProgress] Remove the thickness property#4972
[CircularProgress] Remove the thickness property#4972oliviertassinari wants to merge 1 commit intomui:masterfrom oliviertassinari:circular-progress-remove-thickness
Conversation
|
Actually, I have founds an alternative on the |
|
@oliviertassinari what what what! How did you do it? |
|
@nathanmarks I feel like you are not going to like it, I havn't changed the CSS generated, just the svg properties. The result is not perfect but probably enough for people tweaking around 😁. Well your call, we can revert. |
|
@oliviertassinari yeah, not sure about it, it feels like a bug waiting to be reported IMO |
|
OK, I'm gonna spend some time on the component to see if I can find a better approach. |
|
@oliviertassinari I think I know what needs to be done, ping me on gitter. |
The overall conclusion is that it requires more time to be solved. Time that we think would be better spent on other issues. |
| npm run test:coverage | ||
| npm run test:karma | ||
| coveralls < ./test/coverage/lcov.info | ||
| cat ./test/coverage/lcov.info | ./node_modules/coveralls/bin/coveralls.js |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Revert #4941 as seems to be linked to some flakiness with the coverage fails.
We are taking advantage of the CSS animation on the next branch to render the component. One of the main advantage is to make the component works without a js runtime. That's quite useful when the component is rendered server side. However, that's making the implementation of a thickness more complex. The material specification doesn't seems to use different thickness. Hence, I think that it would be better to make the master branch closer to the next one.
|
Turn out, we also need to generate dynamic classes to work with Safari and different |
4 participants
We are taking advantage of the CSS animation on the next branch
to render the component. One of the main advantages is to make the
component works without a js runtime. That's quite useful when the
component is rendered server side.
However, that's making the implementation of a thickness more complex.
The material specification doesn't seem to use different thickness.
Hence, I think that it would be better to make the master branch closer
to the next one.