Skip to content
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

Components: Add opt-in prop for 40px default size for BoxControl, BorderControl, and BorderBoxControl #56185

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 15, 2024

Conversation

brookewp
Copy link
Contributor

@brookewp brookewp commented Nov 16, 2023

Part of #46741

What?

Add a new opt-in prop __next40pxDefaultSize to BoxControl, BorderControl, and BorderBoxControl, following the plan outlined in above mentioned PR.

Why?

For more consistency in styling. I've grouped these three together since they are very similar.

How?

A new, temporary __next40pxDefaultSize prop. When the prop is set to true, the input will have a height of 40px.

BoxControl

I've included some changes to the width when the prop is enabled, otherwise, the text isn't visible. I used the sizing from BorderControl's compact size, but I'd like to hear from @WordPress/gutenberg-design on this.

Before After
Screenshot 2023-11-15 at 6 32 19 PM Screenshot 2023-11-15 at 6 52 10 PM

Also, due to the narrow size, only 2-3 numbers will be visible without a horizontal scroll.

Screenshot 2023-11-15 at 6 34 53 PM

Testing Instructions

In Storybook:

  1. npm run storybook:dev
  2. See initially that each component hasn't changed
  3. Enable the prop / set to true
  4. See the new size
  5. Ensure all inputs are affected and match

In the editor

Smoke test the components in the editor; BoxControl, BorderControl, and BorderBoxControl shouldn't have any visible changes for now.

Note

BoxControl is only used in DimensionsPanel for backward compatibility. The only way I've been able to test it is by setting showSpacingPresetsControl to true here:

{ ! showSpacingPresetsControl && (
<BoxControl
values={ paddingValues }
onChange={ setPaddingValues }
label={ __( 'Padding' ) }
sides={ paddingSides }
units={ units }
allowReset={ false }
splitOnAxis={ isAxialPadding }
onMouseOver={ onMouseOverPadding }
onMouseOut={ onMouseLeaveControls }
/>
) }

However, __next40pxDefaultSize causes issues in BoxControl, where the text in the input is not visible due to the width constraints of the inspector. So we may need to pause this for BoxControl to reassess the design.

@brookewp brookewp added [Type] Enhancement A suggestion for improvement. [Package] Components /packages/components labels Nov 16, 2023
@brookewp brookewp self-assigned this Nov 16, 2023
@brookewp brookewp requested review from a team November 16, 2023 02:50
@jameskoster
Copy link
Contributor

For BorderBoxControl the borders are fine in Storybook, but the top border seems to be missing in the Inspector:

Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 11 30 26

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think BoxControl is used anywhere, so I couldn't smoke test that one.

Thanks for powering thought all of these!

Copy link
Contributor

@ciampo ciampo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see why using the __next40pxDefaultSize to force size to __unstable-large makes sense for this PR, since it keeps code changes to a minimum. We will be able to clean up this code after deprecating/removing both the __next40pxDefaultSize prop, and the __unstable-large value for the size prop (see logistics)


When both __next40pxDefaultSize and isCompact are true, BorderControl is not wide enough to show the border width:

Screenshot 2023-11-17 at 15 08 15


Not related to this PR (since it can be observed on trunk too), but I realised the BorderControl's dropdown toggle size looks off:

Screenshot 2023-11-17 at 14 01 33

This is probably due to some updates to other components that caused the height of the unit control and the toggle to go out of sync — the 30px width/height specified here should be updated:

  • the simplest update would be to change 30px to 32px
  • it would also be tempting to remove those hardcoded values altogether, and use the size and __next40pxDefaultSize props directly on Button
/>
) }
<BorderBoxControlLinkedButton
onClick={ toggleLinked }
isLinked={ isLinked }
size={ size }
size={ inputHeight }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: we can rewrite the linked button styles in a way that doesn't need the size prop at all. I also realized that the linked button uses the isSmall deprecated prop, which should be replaced by size="small"

Something like this:
diff --git a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control-linked-button/component.tsx b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control-linked-button/component.tsx
index ee76c39742..5388a381de 100644
--- a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control-linked-button/component.tsx
+++ b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control-linked-button/component.tsx
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ const BorderBoxControlLinkedButton = (
 			<View className={ className }>
 				<Button
 					{ ...buttonProps }
-					isSmall
+					size="small"
 					icon={ isLinked ? link : linkOff }
 					iconSize={ 24 }
 					aria-label={ label }
diff --git a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control-linked-button/hook.ts b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control-linked-button/hook.ts
index 3d535a6583..1d00d059ad 100644
--- a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control-linked-button/hook.ts
+++ b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control-linked-button/hook.ts
@@ -16,17 +16,16 @@ import type { LinkedButtonProps } from '../types';
 export function useBorderBoxControlLinkedButton(
 	props: WordPressComponentProps< LinkedButtonProps, 'button' >
 ) {
-	const {
-		className,
-		size = 'default',
-		...otherProps
-	} = useContextSystem( props, 'BorderBoxControlLinkedButton' );
+	const { className, ...otherProps } = useContextSystem(
+		props,
+		'BorderBoxControlLinkedButton'
+	);
 
 	// Generate class names.
 	const cx = useCx();
 	const classes = useMemo( () => {
-		return cx( styles.borderBoxControlLinkedButton( size ), className );
-	}, [ className, cx, size ] );
+		return cx( styles.borderBoxControlLinkedButton(), className );
+	}, [ className, cx ] );
 
 	return { ...otherProps, className: classes };
 }
diff --git a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control/component.tsx b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control/component.tsx
index dbef63eeb5..576a4ebd27 100644
--- a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control/component.tsx
+++ b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/border-box-control/component.tsx
@@ -143,7 +143,6 @@ const UnconnectedBorderBoxControl = (
 				<BorderBoxControlLinkedButton
 					onClick={ toggleLinked }
 					isLinked={ isLinked }
-					size={ inputHeight }
 				/>
 			</View>
 		</View>
diff --git a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/styles.ts b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/styles.ts
index 3fba981080..6007f9671a 100644
--- a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/styles.ts
+++ b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/styles.ts
@@ -22,12 +22,11 @@ export const wrapper = css`
 	position: relative;
 `;
 
-export const borderBoxControlLinkedButton = (
-	size?: 'default' | '__unstable-large'
-) => {
+export const borderBoxControlLinkedButton = () => {
 	return css`
 		position: absolute;
-		top: ${ size === '__unstable-large' ? '8px' : '3px' };
+		top: 50%;
+		transform: translateY( -50% );
 		${ rtl( { right: 0 } )() }
 		line-height: 0;
 	`;
diff --git a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/types.ts b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/types.ts
index 283faf0501..a08cae1661 100644
--- a/packages/components/src/border-box-control/types.ts
+++ b/packages/components/src/border-box-control/types.ts
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ export type BorderBoxControlProps = ColorProps &
 		__next40pxDefaultSize?: boolean;
 	};
 
-export type LinkedButtonProps = Pick< BorderBoxControlProps, 'size' > & {
+export type LinkedButtonProps = {
 	/**
 	 * This prop allows the `LinkedButton` to reflect whether the parent
 	 * `BorderBoxControl` is currently displaying "linked" or "unlinked"
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this would be a good follow-up PR so this one doesn't get too big. And because when applying the diff, I ran into an alignment issue with the link button overlapping:

Screenshot 2023-11-20 at 12 45 32 PM

I think we can remove the absolute positioning to fix this, but I can explore that separately.

const RootWidth = ( {
__next40pxDefaultSize,
}: Pick< BoxUnitControlProps, '__next40pxDefaultSize' > ) => {
const maxWidth = __next40pxDefaultSize ? '320px' : '235px';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jameskoster I believe that @brookewp was requesting feedback in particular regarding this change:

I've included some changes to the width when the prop is enabled, otherwise, the text isn't visible.

Personally, I believe there's a chance that this new width may not really come into effect when the component is used in the editor's sidebar: (this can also be tested in storybook itself)

Screenshot 2023-11-17 at 15 57 43

If that's the case, we may have to think about alternative solutions to make sure that all inputs can show the text, while also fitting in the sidebar

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Possibly a silly question... I understand why a min-width is required on the inputs, but why do we need a max-width? Can't they just scale?

Screenshot 2023-11-17 at 17 17 12

I guess that's separate...

Inspector aside, shouldn't the component be able to scale down to smaller sizes regardless? 280px (Inspector width) is small, but not that small...

All that said, I don't know if this one component is worth prioritising – I'm not sure it's even used in core.

Apologies if I'm still misunderstanding the question.

Copy link
Contributor

@ciampo ciampo Nov 17, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why do we need a max-width? Can't they just scale?

That's a good point. I agree that components should rarely have a max-width (it should be the consumer of this component to add one, if needed). @brookewp , could you look into that, and in particular if (by looking at the history of the component) there's a clear reason for having the max-width ?

Inspector aside, shouldn't the component be able to scale down to smaller sizes regardless? 280px (Inspector width) is small, but not that small...
Apologies if I'm still misunderstanding the question.

Regardless of whether we should be setting a max-width in the component or not, if I understand correctly @brookewp is flagging that, when rendering the UnitControl components with the new 40px height, those inputs need to be wider in order to show their values.

And potentially, when using this component in the editor sidebar, the available width (280px - 2*16px padding) = 248px) may not be enough to have four UnitControls in their "40px" configuration, without cutting the text inside those inputs.

All that said, I don't know if this one component is worth prioritising – I'm not sure it's even used in core.

I think that BoxControl is still used in the dimensions panel (see message below).

It would be great if we could get a list sorted by priority — although ultimately I seem to remember that all components need to be refactored to the new 40px size. We'd like to wrap up the migration sooner rather than later, so that we can refactor our UIs and ultimately remove both the __next40pxDefaultSize prop and the __unstable-large size.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Gotcha. I think the point stands though – since BoxControl is not restricted to the Inspector, it should scale elegantly to smaller widths? If we wanted to reuse existing patterns, here some options:

Custom padding (when spacing presets are provided)

Screenshot 2023-11-20 at 10 29 10

(The settings button would be omitted).

Border control

Screenshot 2023-11-20 at 10 31 20

(The color picker would be omitted).

I don't have a strong feeling either way. As I said this component isn't used in core very often since most themes provide spacing presets nowadays. If neither of these patterns will work, or are too difficult to implement, then we'll probably need to revisit the design.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(this can also be tested in storybook itself)

Such a helpful TIL 🥲 Thank you!

could you look into that, and in particular if (by looking at the history of the component) there's a clear reason for having the max-width ?

This was part of the initial creation of the component three years ago. Nothing was mentioned in relation to the width/input size. The component was made for the Cover block, so my guess is it was sized to fit within the sidebar. So I don't think a hard width is needed.

And potentially, when using this component in the editor sidebar, the available width (280px - 2*16px padding) = 248px) may not be enough to have four UnitControls in their "40px" configuration, without cutting the text inside those inputs.

Looks like that's the case; it's not wide enough 😓

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As I said this component isn't used in core very often since most themes provide spacing presets nowadays.

So it is likely there for backwards compability? Since it shows in the case when showSpacingPresetsControl is false. And it was added quite recently in #48070.

since BoxControl is not restricted to the Inspector, it should scale elegantly to smaller widths? If we wanted to reuse existing patterns, here some options:

@ciampo should we look into an alternative pattern when __next40pxDefaultSize is enabled?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So it is likely there for backwards compability?

Yes. So rather than coming up with a new design it would be simpler to re-use existing patterns (like the padding / border examples above). That way the component will work nicely in any environment, not just the Inspector. What do you think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe the Custom padding option makes the most sense for BoxControl. However, are we okay with imposing a limitation on the values by includingRangeControl? cc @ciampo

If not, are we okay with the Border control option when there are only two values? cc @jameskoster

For example:

Screenshot 2023-11-23 at 6 38 55 PM
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree with Brooke, the layout of the custom padding controls feels like a better fit — although that means that we'll have to introduce a slider next to each input.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That works for me.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On a separate note, I realsed that BoxControl's storybook file hasn't been updated to the same format that other components use (ie. with a meta object, and using the template + args format). Which means that currently, controls are not enabled for its storybook examples. Would you be able to improve this too? (it can definitely happen in a separate PR)

@ciampo
Copy link
Contributor

ciampo commented Nov 17, 2023

@jameskoster :

but the top border seems to be missing in the Inspector:

I believe the component is behaving as expected, since the top border in your screenshot has a width of 0px. Increasing the width should cause the border to show again

I don't think BoxControl is used anywhere, so I couldn't smoke test that one.

It looks like it is used in the dimension panel for padding/margin/block gaps, when spacing presets (which I don't know what they are) are not used

@jameskoster
Copy link
Contributor

I believe the component is behaving as expected, since the top border in your screenshot has a width of 0px. Increasing the width should cause the border to show again

Derp, of course 🤦‍♂️

Copy link
Contributor

@chad1008 chad1008 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for putting all of this together @brookewp!

I saw and agree with Marco's comment on the benefit of using __unstable-large. One thing related to that that stood out to me is that on this PR there are some style changes on the unit selector that appear to come from __unstable-large, in addition to the size itself. So that will need to be preserved when __unstable-large and __next40pxDefaultSize are both eventually deprecated.

@ciampo
Copy link
Contributor

ciampo commented Nov 22, 2023

So, to recap, it looks like there are a few pre-requisites and/or follow-ups to this PR.

Here's a suggested plan of action:

  1. Following this conversation, we could refactor BorderBox to find a different layout (regardless of the 40px size) and remove any max-width. I would try to optimize for whatever is the easiest/quickest solution here
  2. In the meantime, we could:
  3. Once that's done, we could resume work on this PR and merge it
  4. Finally, and optionally, we could take a look at refining BorderBoxControl's styles

What do folks think?

@brookewp
Copy link
Contributor Author

brookewp commented Dec 6, 2023

A status update on the prelude to this PR via the plan ciampo shared above (steps 1-2):

@ciampo ciampo added this to In progress (owned) ⏳ in WordPress Components via automation Dec 13, 2023
@brookewp brookewp force-pushed the add/40px-size-box-border-control branch 2 times, most recently from a23876d to 11a22e2 Compare January 12, 2024 04:34
@brookewp brookewp requested review from ciampo, chad1008 and a team January 12, 2024 05:22
@ciampo
Copy link
Contributor

ciampo commented Jan 12, 2024

Code changes are nice and clear, and overall things are looking good.

One thing that I was wondering, is whether we should also forward the new 40px default size to the components in the dropdown of BorderControl and BorderBoxControl:

Screenshot 2024-01-12 at 18 08 50

That could also happen in a follow-up, but it would mean updating a few more components to support the new sizing scheme.

(cc @jameskoster )

@jameskoster
Copy link
Contributor

Potentially, yes! Though I would rather prioritise updating the swatch buttons to use the 32/40 sizing convention.

Copy link
Contributor

@ciampo ciampo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe we can merge this PR (after rebasing, which should also fix the CI failures) 🚀

We could then follow-up on updating the componentry in BorderControl's dropdown:

Potentially, yes! Though I would rather prioritise updating the swatch buttons to use the 32/40 sizing convention.

@mirka 's work in #57562 is already potentially taking care of the "style" section in the dropdown.

@brookewp , maybe you could take a look at the swatch buttons? I guess we could:

  • add a size prop which adds a size="compact" (32px)
  • add the usual opt-in prop for chaing the default size to 40px

What do y'all think?

@mirka
Copy link
Member

mirka commented Jan 15, 2024

updating the swatch buttons to use the 32/40 sizing convention

@jameskoster Just to be clear, are there actual use cases where the CircularOptionPicker needs to be 32 in some places but 40px in others?

In most (all?) consumer components (ColorPalette, DuotonePicker, GradientPicker, PaletteEdit), I'm hoping we can just update the swatch button sizes internally to a single new size without providing multiple size options.

@brookewp brookewp force-pushed the add/40px-size-box-border-control branch from 11a22e2 to c8e7f47 Compare January 15, 2024 18:50
@brookewp brookewp merged commit 464961e into trunk Jan 15, 2024
56 checks passed
WordPress Components automation moved this from In progress (owned) ⏳ to Done 🎉 Jan 15, 2024
@brookewp brookewp deleted the add/40px-size-box-border-control branch January 15, 2024 23:54
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the Gutenberg 17.6 milestone Jan 15, 2024
@jameskoster
Copy link
Contributor

Just to be clear, are there actual use cases where the CircularOptionPicker needs to be 32 in some places but 40px in others?

It's hard to say without doing a full audit, but I'd be inclined to say they should always all be the same size. It certainly seems fine to start with a single size.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[Package] Components /packages/components [Type] Enhancement A suggestion for improvement.
5 participants