feat(docs): add the Layout page #78
Conversation
…nt into the standalone component
desmondinho
temporarily deployed
to
Production
GitHub Actions
Inactive
WalkthroughThis pull request modifies the Changes
Possibly related PRs
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #78 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 96.95% 96.37% -0.58%
==========================================
Files 70 70
Lines 1542 1543 +1
Branches 150 145 -5
==========================================
- Hits 1495 1487 -8
- Misses 28 37 +9
Partials 19 19 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (31)
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigOpacity.html (3)
1-9: LGTM! Consider adding XML documentation comments.The
LayoutConfigconstructor is well-structured and initializes opacity values for different UI states. This is a good practice for setting default values.Consider adding XML documentation comments to explain the purpose of this constructor and the meaning of each opacity value. This would enhance the documentation and make it more informative for developers. For example:
/// <summary> /// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="LayoutConfig"/> class with default opacity values. /// </summary> public LayoutConfig() { // ... (existing code) }
3-6: Consider using consistent decimal notation.The opacity values are currently set using a mix of decimal notations. For better readability and consistency, consider using a uniform notation throughout.
Apply this diff to standardize the decimal notation:
- DisabledOpacity = .6; - FocusOpacity = .7; - HoverOpacity = .8; - DividerOpacity = .15; + DisabledOpacity = 0.6; + FocusOpacity = 0.7; + HoverOpacity = 0.8; + DividerOpacity = 0.15;
7-7: Clarify the comment about additional properties.The comment "// ..." suggests that there might be more properties to initialize. It would be helpful to clarify this for documentation purposes.
Consider replacing the vague comment with something more informative, such as:
- // ... + // Additional properties can be initialized hereAlternatively, if there are no more properties to initialize, you may want to remove this comment entirely.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/Usage.razor (1)
1-6: LGTM! Consider minor formatting improvement.The changes look good. The update from
ClassestoPreviewClassesimproves the clarity of the API. The usage of@rendermode InteractiveAutoand the object initialization syntax for bothCodeandPreviewClassesproperties are appropriate.Consider formatting the component attributes for better readability:
<PreviewCode Code="@new(name: null, snippet: "Card.Code.Usage")" PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "justify-center" })"> <LumexUI.Docs.Client.Pages.Components.Card.Examples.Usage /> </PreviewCode>This format aligns the attributes and makes the code easier to read, especially if more attributes are added in the future.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Usage.razor (1)
1-6: LGTM! Consider minor formatting improvement.The change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesimproves clarity and aligns with the updated component specifications. This is a good refactoring that enhances the code's readability.Consider formatting the component attributes for better readability:
-<PreviewCode Code="@new(name: null, snippet: "Accordion.Code.Usage")" - PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "bg-zinc-50" })"> +<PreviewCode + Code="@new(name: null, snippet: "Accordion.Code.Usage")" + PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "bg-zinc-50" })">This formatting style improves readability, especially as more attributes might be added in the future.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Button/PreviewCodes/Disabled.razor (1)
1-6: LGTM! Consider enhancing readability with named parameters.The changes look good and align with what seems to be a broader refactoring effort (changing
ClassestoPreviewClasses). The use ofInteractiveAutorender mode and the new anonymous object syntax for properties is appropriate and modern.To further improve readability, consider using named parameters for the
new()constructor calls. This can make the code more self-documenting, especially for developers less familiar with the codebase.Here's a suggested minor refactor for improved readability:
<PreviewCode Code="@(new(name: null, snippet: "Button.Code.Disabled"))" - PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "max-w-fit bg-zinc-50" })"> + PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "max-w-fit bg-zinc-50" })" + > <LumexUI.Docs.Client.Pages.Components.Button.Examples.Disabled /> </PreviewCode>This change breaks the
PreviewClassesattribute onto a new line, which can improve readability, especially if more properties are added in the future.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Button/PreviewCodes/WithIcons.razor (1)
Line range hint
1-7: Overall structure and modern C# features look goodThe code demonstrates good practices:
- Use of
@rendermode InteractiveAutofor optimized rendering.- Clear separation of concerns with the nested example component.
- Modern C# syntax for object initialization in the
PreviewClassesattribute.For improved readability, consider breaking the
PreviewCodecomponent attributes into multiple lines:<PreviewCode Code="@new(name: null, snippet: "Button.Code.WithIcons")" PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "max-w-fit bg-zinc-50" })"> <LumexUI.Docs.Client.Pages.Components.Button.Examples.WithIcons /> </PreviewCode>This format can make it easier to read and maintain, especially if more attributes are added in the future.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/DisabledItems.razor (1)
1-6: LGTM! Consider minor formatting adjustment.The changes look good. The property name update from
ClassestoPreviewClassesimproves clarity. TheInteractiveAutorender mode and theCodeproperty initialization are appropriate.Consider adjusting the formatting for better readability:
<PreviewCode Code="@new(name: null, snippet: "Accordion.Code.DisabledItems")" - PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "bg-zinc-50" })"> + PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "bg-zinc-50" })"> <LumexUI.Docs.Client.Pages.Components.Accordion.Examples.DisabledItems /> </PreviewCode>This aligns the
PreviewClassesattribute with theCodeattribute, improving visual consistency.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/ExpandedItems.razor (1)
1-6: LGTM! Consider minor formatting adjustment.The changes look good and improve the clarity of the component usage. The rename from
ClassestoPreviewClassesenhances the API's expressiveness.A minor suggestion for improved readability:
Consider formatting the
PreviewCodecomponent attributes vertically for better readability, especially if more attributes are added in the future:<PreviewCode Code="@new(name: null, snippet: "Accordion.Code.ExpandedItems")" PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "bg-zinc-50" })"> <LumexUI.Docs.Client.Pages.Components.Accordion.Examples.ExpandedItems /> </PreviewCode>docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigLineHeight.html (1)
1-12: Good implementation of responsive line heights, consider adding documentationThe
LayoutConfigconstructor effectively initializes theLineHeightproperty with responsive values using theFontScaleclass. This approach is good for managing line heights across different screen sizes. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- Consider adding XML documentation to the constructor to explain its purpose and any default configurations it sets up.
- If there are more properties being initialized in this constructor, it might be helpful to show them or at least indicate their presence more clearly than with a simple comment.
- Evaluate whether the hardcoded line height values should be configurable or defined as constants/enums for easier maintenance and customization.
Here's an example of how you might enhance the code with documentation and potentially make the values more flexible:
/// <summary> /// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="LayoutConfig"/> class with default responsive line heights. /// </summary> public LayoutConfig() { LineHeight = new FontScale { Xs = LineHeightValues.ExtraSmall, Sm = LineHeightValues.Small, Md = LineHeightValues.Medium, Lg = LineHeightValues.Large }; // Initialize other properties... } /// <summary> /// Defines default line height values for different screen sizes. /// </summary> public static class LineHeightValues { public const string ExtraSmall = "1rem"; public const string Small = "1.25rem"; public const string Medium = "1.5rem"; public const string Large = "1.75rem"; }This approach allows for easier updates to line height values and provides clear documentation for developers using this class.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/_Imports.razor (1)
8-8: LGTM! Consider grouping related namespaces.The addition of
@using LumexUI.Docs.Themeis appropriate and aligns with the PR objectives. It's correctly placed within the LumexUI.Docs namespace group.For improved readability, consider grouping related namespaces together. You could move this line up to be with the other
LumexUI.Docsnamespaces:@using LumexUI.Docs @using LumexUI.Docs.Common @using LumexUI.Docs.Components @using LumexUI.Docs.Extensions +@using LumexUI.Docs.Theme @using LumexUI.Docs.Client.Common @using LumexUI.Docs.Client.Components @using LumexUI.Common @using LumexUI.Theme -@using LumexUI.Docs.ThemeThis change would group all
LumexUI.Docsnamespaces together, improving the organization of the file.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/BlurredCard.razor (1)
Line range hint
9-14: Consider improving customization and maintainabilityWhile the current implementation works, there are a few areas where we could improve customization and maintainability:
- The background image URL is hardcoded. Consider making it a parameter of the component for better reusability.
- CSS properties like brightness and mask-image are directly set in the class string. It might be more maintainable to use CSS variables or a separate CSS file for these styles.
Example of how this could be improved:
@code { [Parameter] public string BackgroundImageUrl { get; set; } = "/assets/images/card-5.jpg"; private Preview.Slots _classes => new() { Preview = "justify-center", Background = $"bg-[url('{BackgroundImageUrl}')] bg-cover bg-bottom {CssVariables}" }; private string CssVariables => "style=\"--brightness: 0.9; --mask-image: none;\""; }This approach would allow for easier customization of the background image and style properties.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigShadow.html (2)
1-2: LGTM! Consider adding XML documentation.The constructor definition for
LayoutConfigis well-structured and follows C# conventions. It's public and parameterless, which is appropriate for a configuration class.Consider adding XML documentation to describe the purpose of this constructor and the
LayoutConfigclass. This will improve code readability and help developers understand how to use this configuration.Example:
/// <summary> /// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="LayoutConfig"/> class with default shadow settings. /// </summary> public LayoutConfig() { // ... }Also applies to: 9-11
3-8: LGTM! Consider using string interpolation for improved readability.The initialization of the
Shadowproperty with different shadow styles is well-structured and provides a good range of options. The CSS values for shadows are well-crafted, using multiple layers and rgba colors for a realistic effect.To improve readability, consider using C# string interpolation and breaking down the shadow values into separate variables. This will make it easier to adjust individual shadow components in the future. For example:
Shadow = new BaseScale() { Sm = CreateShadow(0, 5, 0.02f, 2, 10, 0.06f), Md = CreateShadow(0, 15, 0.03f, 2, 30, 0.08f), Lg = CreateShadow(0, 20, 0.04f, 2, 50, 0.10f) }; private string CreateShadow(int offsetY1, int blur1, float opacity1, int offsetY2, int blur2, float opacity2) => $"0px {offsetY1}px {blur1}px 0px rgba(0,0,0,{opacity1:F2}), " + $"0px {offsetY2}px {blur2}px 0px rgba(0,0,0,{opacity2:F2}), " + "0px 0px 1px 0px rgba(0,0,0,.15)";This approach makes the shadow values more maintainable and easier to adjust.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigFull.html (2)
24-29: LGTM: Radius settings are well-defined, but consider adding Xs size.The Radius property is initialized with a logical progression from small (Sm) to large (Lg). The use of "rem" units is consistent with other properties, which is good for maintaining proportional scaling.
Consider adding an Xs (extra small) size to the Radius property for consistency with FontSize and LineHeight properties. This could provide more flexibility in design, especially for smaller components.
31-36: LGTM: Shadow settings are comprehensive, but consider improving readability.The Shadow property is well-defined with a logical progression of complexity from small (Sm) to large (Lg). The use of rgba() for color definition allows for fine-grained opacity control, which is excellent for creating realistic shadows.
Consider improving the readability of the shadow definitions by breaking them into multiple lines. For example:
Shadow = new BaseScale() { Sm = @"0px 0px 5px 0px rgba(0,0,0,.02), 0px 2px 10px 0px rgba(0,0,0,.06), 0px 0px 1px 0px rgba(0,0,0,.15)", // ... (similarly for Md and Lg) };This format would make it easier to read and maintain the shadow definitions.
src/LumexUI/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs (1)
54-54: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The addition of the "leading" ClassGroup is a good enhancement to the TailwindMerge configuration. It provides support for line-height classes, which is consistent with Tailwind CSS conventions.
Consider adding a brief comment above this line to explain the purpose of the "leading" ClassGroup, similar to how you might document an API. For example:
+ // Configures class group for line-height utilities ["leading"] = new ClassGroup( "leading", ["tiny", "small", "medium", "large"] ),This would improve code readability and make it easier for other developers to understand the purpose of this configuration.
src/LumexUI/Theme/Layout/LayoutConfig.cs (1)
Line range hint
18-19: Add XML documentation for theLineHeightproperty.To maintain consistency with other properties and improve code documentation, please add an XML documentation comment for the
LineHeightproperty. This will help developers understand the purpose and usage of this property.Here's a suggested comment to add above the property declaration:
/// <summary> /// Gets or sets the line heights for different screen sizes. /// </summary> public FontScale LineHeight { get; set; }docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/Colors.razor (1)
5-5: Approved: Title change enhances document structureThe change from "Colors in LumexUI" to "Overview" improves the document structure and aligns with common documentation practices. This provides a clear entry point for readers to understand the color system in LumexUI.
Consider adding a brief introductory sentence under this section to provide context, such as "This page provides an overview of the color system in LumexUI."
src/LumexUI/Theme/Colors/Models/ColorScale.cs (3)
Line range hint
40-40: Correct initialization of _colorsThe change from array initialization to dictionary initialization is correct and aligns with the class's internal structure. The use of collection initializer syntax (
[]) is a modern C# feature that improves code readability.Consider adding a capacity to the dictionary initialization for potential performance benefits if you have an estimate of the expected number of colors:
_colors = new Dictionary<string, string>(capacity: 16);This can help reduce the number of internal resizes if you expect the dictionary to grow beyond its default capacity.
Line range hint
47-47: Constructor chaining and initializationThe change to call the parameterless constructor (
: this()) in the single-parameter constructor is a good practice. It ensures consistent initialization and follows the DRY principle.For the constructor with
IReadOnlyDictionaryparameter, consider removing the: this()call as it's unnecessary. The_colorsdictionary is immediately overwritten in this constructor. Here's a suggested modification:- public ColorScale( IReadOnlyDictionary<string, string> colors, string defaultKey = "500" ) : this() + public ColorScale( IReadOnlyDictionary<string, string> colors, string defaultKey = "500" )This small change would slightly improve performance by avoiding the creation of an unnecessary empty dictionary.
Also applies to: 59-59
Line range hint
9-9: Consider addressing the TODO commentThere's an existing TODO comment at the beginning of the file:
// TODO: Think why this is not an implementation of the `IDictionary`?While not directly related to the current changes, it might be worth considering whether
ColorScaleshould implementIDictionary<string, string>in a future update. This could potentially simplify the interface and make the class more intuitive to use.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/LayoutConfig.razor (6)
5-17: LGTM: Informative overview section.The overview provides a clear introduction to LumexUI's layout configuration capabilities. The use of a callout to highlight important information is effective.
Consider adding a brief example or link to a demo to make the overview more engaging and immediately useful to readers.
19-165: LGTM: Comprehensive default configuration section.The default configuration section is well-structured and covers key aspects of layout customization. The consistent use of previews and code snippets across subsections enhances understanding.
Consider the following enhancements:
- Add brief explanations of when to use each configuration option.
- Include links to related components or use cases for each configuration type.
- Consider adding a table summarizing all default values for quick reference.
168-176: Enhance the Customization section.While linking to more detailed information is helpful, this section could be more informative. Consider the following improvements:
- Add a brief overview of the customization process.
- Include a simple example of how to start customizing the layout.
- Mention any tools or utilities that aid in customization.
- Consider adding a FAQ subsection addressing common customization queries.
178-207: LGTM: Well-structured code block.The code block is well-organized and follows good practices for Blazor components. The use of a cascading parameter for the layout and the initialization method are appropriate.
Consider adding XML documentation comments to the
OnInitializedmethod to explain its purpose and any important details about the initialization process.
23-24: LGTM: Effective use of Preview and CodeSnippet components.The consistent use of
PreviewandCodeSnippetcomponents throughout the file enhances the documentation by providing visual examples and corresponding code.To improve maintainability:
- Consider using a centralized source for code snippets (e.g., actual source files) to ensure they stay up-to-date with the actual implementation.
- If not already implemented, consider adding a mechanism to validate that the displayed code snippets are syntactically correct and reflect the current API.
Also applies to: 43-44, 48-49, 68-69, 73-74, 89-90, 94-95, 110-111, 115-116, 159-160, 164-165
1-207: LGTM: Well-structured and comprehensive layout configuration documentation.This file provides a thorough and well-organized documentation of LumexUI's layout configuration options. The logical flow from overview to detailed configurations, coupled with visual examples and code snippets, makes it a valuable resource for developers.
Suggestions for future enhancements:
- Consider adding interactive examples that allow users to modify configuration values and see real-time changes.
- Include more advanced customization scenarios or case studies demonstrating how to achieve specific design goals.
- Add a troubleshooting section addressing common issues developers might encounter when customizing layouts.
- Consider implementing a versioning system for the documentation to help users understand changes across different versions of LumexUI.
src/LumexUI/Scripts/Plugin/plugin.js (1)
178-183: Consider adding usage examples or documentation for the newlineHeightproperty.While the addition of the
lineHeightproperty is well-implemented and consistent with the existing theme structure, it might be beneficial to provide some usage examples or documentation. This could help developers understand how to effectively utilize these new line height options in their LumexUI projects.For instance, you could:
- Add a comment above the
lineHeightproperty explaining its purpose and how it relates to thefontSizeproperty.- Create a separate documentation file or update existing docs to showcase how these line height values can be used in combination with font sizes.
- Provide examples of how these line heights can be applied in common UI components or typography classes.
This additional context would further enhance the usability of the new feature and ensure that developers can make the most of the expanded typography controls.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/Preview.razor (2)
11-12: Consider adding XML documentation comments to public parametersIncluding XML documentation comments for the
ChildContentandClassesparameters enhances code maintainability and provides better IntelliSense support for developers using thePreviewcomponent.
41-46: Seal theSlotsclass if not intended for inheritanceIf the
Slotsclass is not meant to be inherited, consider sealing it to prevent unintended subclassing, enhancing code safety.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (46)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/Preview.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/PreviewCode.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/PreviewCode.razor.cs (2 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/CustomIndicator.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/CustomIndicatorState.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Disabled.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/DisabledItems.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Expanded.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/ExpandedItems.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Multiple.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/StartContent.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Subtitle.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/TwoWayDataBinding.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Usage.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Variants.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Button/PreviewCodes/Disabled.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Button/PreviewCodes/Variants.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Button/PreviewCodes/WithIcons.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/BlurredCard.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/BlurredFooter.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/Complex.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/CoverImage.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/CustomStyles.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/Dividers.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/Image.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/Usage.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigFontSize.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigFontSizeExample.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigFull.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigLineHeight.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigLineHeightExample.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigOpacity.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigOpacityExample.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigRadius.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigRadiusExample.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigShadow.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigShadowExample.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/_Imports.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/Colors.razor (3 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/LayoutConfig.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/_Imports.razor (1 hunks)
- src/LumexUI/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
- src/LumexUI/Scripts/Plugin/plugin.js (1 hunks)
- src/LumexUI/Styles/Navbar.cs (1 hunks)
- src/LumexUI/Theme/Colors/Models/ColorScale.cs (1 hunks)
- src/LumexUI/Theme/Layout/LayoutConfig.cs (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (6)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigFontSizeExample.html
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigLineHeightExample.html
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigOpacityExample.html
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigRadiusExample.html
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigShadowExample.html
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/_Imports.razor
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (40)
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/Image.razor (1)
4-4: LGTM! Verify consistency across the codebase.The change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesimproves clarity by better describing the purpose of these classes. This is a good refactoring step.To ensure consistency, please run the following script to check if this change has been applied uniformly across the codebase:
This will help identify any places where the attribute might still need to be updated or confirm that the change has been applied consistently.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/Complex.razor (1)
1-6: Improved attribute naming and structured data passing.The changes in this file enhance clarity and structure:
- The attribute rename from
ClassestoPreviewClassesprovides more specific context for the styling.- The use of anonymous objects for both
CodeandPreviewClassesattributes offers a structured way to pass multiple related properties.These changes improve code readability and maintainability. However, ensure that these modifications are consistent across all usage of the
PreviewCodecomponent to maintain uniformity in the codebase.To verify the consistency of these changes across the codebase, run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Consistent Usage of 'PreviewCode' Attributes Verified
The changes in this file have been successfully verified across the codebase. There are no remaining instances of the old
Classesattribute with thePreviewCodecomponent, and the usage ofPreviewClassesand theCodeattribute structure is consistent throughout.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent usage of PreviewCode component attributes # Test 1: Check for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute with PreviewCode echo "Checking for old 'Classes' attribute usage:" rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' # Test 2: Verify consistent usage of 'PreviewClasses' attribute echo "Verifying 'PreviewClasses' attribute usage:" rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*=' # Test 3: Check the structure of 'Code' attribute echo "Checking 'Code' attribute structure:" rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*Code\s*=\s*@new\(name:' # Expected results: # - Test 1 should return no results # - Test 2 should show consistent usage of 'PreviewClasses' # - Test 3 should show consistent structure for 'Code' attributeLength of output: 537
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent usage of PreviewCode component attributes without specifying file type # Find all .razor files razor_files=$(fd --extension razor) # Test 1: Check for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute with PreviewCode echo "Checking for old 'Classes' attribute usage:" echo "$razor_files" | xargs rg 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' # Test 2: Verify consistent usage of 'PreviewClasses' attribute echo "Verifying 'PreviewClasses' attribute usage:" echo "$razor_files" | xargs rg 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*=' # Test 3: Check the structure of 'Code' attribute echo "Checking 'Code' attribute structure:" echo "$razor_files" | xargs rg 'PreviewCode.*Code\s*=\s*@new\(name:'Length of output: 39053
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent usage of PreviewCode component attributes with proper handling of file paths containing spaces # Find all .razor files and handle spaces in filenames razor_files=$(fd --extension razor -0) # Test 1: Check for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute with PreviewCode echo "Checking for old 'Classes' attribute usage:" echo "$razor_files" | xargs -0 rg 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' # Test 2: Verify consistent usage of 'PreviewClasses' attribute echo "Verifying 'PreviewClasses' attribute usage:" echo "$razor_files" | xargs -0 rg 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*=' # Test 3: Check the structure of 'Code' attribute echo "Checking 'Code' attribute structure:" echo "$razor_files" | xargs -0 rg 'PreviewCode.*Code\s*=\s*@new\(name:'Length of output: 67531
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent usage of PreviewCode component attributes with proper handling of file paths containing spaces # Test 1: Check for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute with PreviewCode echo "Checking for old 'Classes' attribute usage:" fd --extension razor -0 | xargs -0 rg 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' # Test 2: Verify consistent usage of 'PreviewClasses' attribute echo "Verifying 'PreviewClasses' attribute usage:" fd --extension razor -0 | xargs -0 rg 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*=' # Test 3: Check the structure of 'Code' attribute echo "Checking 'Code' attribute structure:" fd --extension razor -0 | xargs -0 rg 'PreviewCode.*Code\s*=\s*@new\(name:'Length of output: 513
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/Dividers.razor (1)
4-4: Attribute name change improves clarityThe change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesis a positive improvement. It makes the purpose of the attribute more specific and clear, which aligns with good naming conventions in software development.To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify if this change has been applied uniformly:
This script will help us identify any inconsistencies in the attribute naming across the project.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/CoverImage.razor (1)
4-4: Attribute renamed fromClassestoPreviewClassesThe
Classesattribute has been renamed toPreviewClasses. This change appears to be part of an API update for thePreviewCodecomponent. The new syntaxPreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "justify-center" })"suggests a more structured approach to passing classes.To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify if this change has been applied uniformly:
This script will help us identify any inconsistencies in the implementation of this change across the project.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Disabled.razor (1)
4-4: Improved naming convention for preview-related styling.The change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesis a good improvement. It makes the attribute's purpose more explicit and aligns better with its specific use for preview styling. This change enhances code readability and maintains consistency with the component's intended functionality.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Expanded.razor (1)
4-4: Attribute name updated fromClassestoPreviewClassesThe change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesappears to be part of a refactoring effort to improve clarity in thePreviewCodecomponent. This change aligns with the AI-generated summary, which mentioned this specific modification.To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify if this change has been applied uniformly:
This script will help us identify if there are any inconsistencies in the attribute usage across other files.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Multiple.razor (1)
4-4: Property name change fromClassestoPreviewClassesThe change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesappears to be a good improvement in terms of clarity and specificity. This change likely enhances the readability of the code and makes the purpose of the property more explicit.However, to ensure consistency across the codebase:
- Verify that this change has been applied uniformly across all uses of the
PreviewCodecomponent.- Check if any documentation or usage examples need to be updated to reflect this change.
- Confirm that no breaking changes have been introduced for consumers of the
PreviewCodecomponent.To verify the consistency of this change across the codebase, you can run the following script:
This will help ensure that the change has been applied consistently and that no instances of the old property name remain.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Subtitle.razor (2)
Line range hint
1-7: LGTM! The rest of the file looks good.The use of
InteractiveAutorender mode, the code snippet reference, and the child component usage are all appropriate and consistent with best practices.
3-5: Property name updated fromClassestoPreviewClassesThe property name in the
PreviewCodecomponent has been changed fromClassestoPreviewClasses. This change appears to be part of an API update for thePreviewCodecomponent.To ensure this change has been consistently applied across the codebase, please run the following verification script:
This script will help identify any inconsistencies in the usage of the new
PreviewClassesproperty across the project.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Button/PreviewCodes/Variants.razor (1)
4-4: LGTM! Verify impact on other components.The change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesimproves the specificity of the attribute name, which is a good practice. This change likely enhances code readability and maintainability.To ensure consistency across the codebase, please run the following script to check if this change has been applied uniformly:
This script will help identify any inconsistencies in the usage of the new
PreviewClassesattribute across other components.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Button/PreviewCodes/WithIcons.razor (1)
4-4: Attribute name change fromClassestoPreviewClassesThe attribute name has been updated from
ClassestoPreviewClasses. This change appears to be part of a refactoring to improve clarity in the component's API.To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify if this change has been applied uniformly:
This script will help us identify if there are any inconsistencies in the attribute naming across the project.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigRadius.html (1)
1-11: LGTM! Well-structured code snippet for documentation.The code snippet effectively demonstrates the initialization of the
Radiusproperty in theLayoutConfigconstructor. It's clear, concise, and follows C# naming conventions.A few observations and suggestions:
- The use of rem units for radius values is a good practice for responsive design.
- Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the
Radiusproperty and its relationship to the UI framework.- If there are other properties initialized in this constructor, it might be helpful to show at least one more to give a more complete picture of the
LayoutConfigclass.As this is a documentation file, ensure that:
- This code snippet is accompanied by explanatory text in the actual documentation.
- The ellipsis (
// ...) is explained or replaced with actual code if there are other relevant properties to show.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/StartContent.razor (1)
4-4: LGTM! Verify consistency across the codebase.The renaming of
ClassestoPreviewClassesimproves the specificity of the property name. This change looks good and aligns with best practices for clear and descriptive naming conventions.To ensure consistency, please verify that this change has been applied uniformly across all usages of the
PreviewCodecomponent. Run the following script to check for any remaining instances ofClassesinPreviewCodecomponents:Additionally, ensure that any relevant documentation or usage guides for the
PreviewCodecomponent have been updated to reflect this change.✅ Verification successful
To accurately verify that all instances of
Classeshave been renamed toPreviewClassesinPreviewCodecomponents, please run the updated script below:
Verified! All
PreviewCodecomponents have been updated to usePreviewClasses. No remaining instances ofClassesfound.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining instances of 'Classes' in PreviewCode components # Search for PreviewCode components still using 'Classes' rg --type razor '<PreviewCode.*Classes.*>' -g '!**/StartContent.razor' # If no results are found, it means all instances have been updated correctly if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then echo "All PreviewCode components have been updated correctly." fiLength of output: 241
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining instances of 'Classes' in PreviewCode components # Define 'razor' file type by associating it with .razor files rg --type-add 'razor:*.razor' '<PreviewCode[^>]*\sClasses\s*=' --type razor -g '!StartContent.razor' # Check the exit status to determine if matches were found if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then echo "All PreviewCode components have been updated correctly." else echo "Some PreviewCode components still use 'Classes'. Please update them to 'PreviewClasses'." fiLength of output: 241
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/CustomIndicator.razor (1)
1-6: LGTM! Improvements in code clarity and consistency.The changes in this file represent improvements in code clarity and consistency:
- The attribute rename from
ClassestoPreviewClassesmakes the purpose of the attribute more explicit.- The new syntax for initializing the
CodeandPreviewClassesproperties is more concise and readable.These changes align well with modern C# practices and improve the overall quality of the code.
To ensure consistency across the codebase, please verify if similar changes are needed in other components using
PreviewCode. Run the following script to check for any remaining usage of theClassesattribute withPreviewCode:If the script returns any results, consider updating those instances to use
PreviewClassesfor consistency.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/TwoWayDataBinding.razor (1)
1-6: LGTM! Attribute name updated correctly.The change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesappears to be a valid API update for thePreviewCodecomponent. The new attribute name is more specific and clearer in its purpose.To ensure consistency across the codebase, please run the following verification script:
If there's any documentation for the
PreviewCodecomponent or its usage, please ensure it's updated to reflect this change fromClassestoPreviewClasses.✅ Verification successful
LGTM! Attribute name updated correctly and consistently across PreviewCode components.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute in PreviewCode components # and confirm that 'PreviewClasses' is being used consistently. echo "Checking for any remaining 'Classes' attributes in PreviewCode components:" rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' echo "Verifying consistent usage of 'PreviewClasses' attribute:" rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*='Length of output: 452
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute in PreviewCode components # and confirm that 'PreviewClasses' is being used consistently within .razor files. echo "Checking for any remaining 'Classes' attributes in PreviewCode components within .razor files:" rg 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' -g "*.razor" echo "Verifying consistent usage of 'PreviewClasses' attribute within .razor files:" rg 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*=' -g "*.razor"Length of output: 472
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the 'Classes' attribute has been fully replaced by 'PreviewClasses' # and that 'PreviewClasses' is used consistently across all .razor files. echo "Checking for any remaining 'Classes' attributes in PreviewCode components within .razor files:" rg 'PreviewCode\s+[^>]*\bClasses\s*=' -g "*.razor" echo "Checking for usage of 'PreviewClasses' attribute in PreviewCode components within .razor files:" rg 'PreviewCode\s+[^>]*\bPreviewClasses\s*=' -g "*.razor" echo "Verifying there are no 'Classes' attributes outside of PreviewCode components within .razor files:" rg '\bClasses\s*=' -g "*.razor" | grep -v 'PreviewCode' echo "Verifying the presence of 'PreviewClasses' attributes outside of PreviewCode components within .razor files:" rg '\bPreviewClasses\s*=' -g "*.razor" | grep -v 'PreviewCode'Length of output: 1476
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/CustomIndicatorState.razor (1)
4-4: Attribute name updated fromClassestoPreviewClassesThe change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesappears to be correct and aligns with the AI-generated summary. This modification likely reflects an update in thePreviewCodecomponent's API.To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify if similar changes are needed in other files:
This script will help identify if there are other instances of
PreviewCodecomponents that might need similar updates.✅ Verification successful
Attribute
Classessuccessfully renamed toPreviewClassesacross all relevant.razorfiles.The change aligns with the component's API and maintains functionality consistency throughout the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other occurrences of the Classes attribute in PreviewCode components # Search for PreviewCode components still using the Classes attribute echo "Searching for PreviewCode components still using the Classes attribute:" rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' -g '!CustomIndicatorState.razor' # Search for PreviewCode components using the new PreviewClasses attribute echo "Searching for PreviewCode components using the new PreviewClasses attribute:" rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*='Length of output: 505
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other occurrences of the Classes attribute in PreviewCode components # Search for PreviewCode components still using the Classes attribute in .razor files echo "Searching for PreviewCode components still using the Classes attribute:" rg 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' -g '*.razor' --ignore-file ~/.ignore # Search for PreviewCode components using the new PreviewClasses attribute in .razor files echo "Searching for PreviewCode components using the new PreviewClasses attribute:" rg 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*=' -g '*.razor' --ignore-file ~/.ignoreLength of output: 612
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other occurrences of the Classes and PreviewClasses attributes in PreviewCode components # Search for PreviewCode components still using the Classes attribute in .razor files echo "Searching for PreviewCode components still using the Classes attribute:" rg 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' -g '*.razor' -g '!CustomIndicatorState.razor' # Search for PreviewCode components using the new PreviewClasses attribute in .razor files echo "Searching for PreviewCode components using the PreviewClasses attribute:" rg 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*=' -g '*.razor' -g '!CustomIndicatorState.razor'Length of output: 470
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/CustomStyles.razor (1)
4-4: Attribute renamed fromClassestoPreviewClassesThe change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesappears to be a deliberate refactoring to make the attribute name more specific and descriptive. This change aligns with the information provided in the AI-generated summary.Considerations:
- The new name
PreviewClassesis more explicit about its purpose, which improves code readability and maintainability.- This change might be part of a larger refactoring effort to standardize naming conventions across the LumexUI framework.
To ensure consistency across the codebase and prevent any potential breaking changes, let's verify the usage of this new attribute name:
This script will help us identify if there are any instances where the old
Classesattribute is still being used, and confirm that the newPreviewClassesattribute is being used consistently across the codebase.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigFontSize.html (1)
1-11: LGTM! Good approach to responsive font sizing.The constructor initializes the
FontSizeproperty with aFontScaleinstance, providing responsive font sizes for different screen sizes. This is a good approach to ensure readability across various devices.Consider adding XML documentation for the constructor to improve code clarity:
/// <summary> /// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="LayoutConfig"/> class with default font sizes. /// </summary> public LayoutConfig() { // ... (existing code) }For more flexibility, consider using a configuration file or constants for font sizes:
public LayoutConfig(IConfiguration configuration) { FontSize = new FontScale() { Xs = configuration["FontSizes:Xs"] ?? "0.75rem", Sm = configuration["FontSizes:Sm"] ?? "0.875rem", Md = configuration["FontSizes:Md"] ?? "1rem", Lg = configuration["FontSizes:Lg"] ?? "1.125rem" }; // ... }This approach allows for easier global changes and potentially runtime configuration.
The code snippet appears to be incomplete. Let's verify if there are more properties being initialized:
This will help ensure we're not missing any important initialization steps in our review.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/PreviewCodes/BlurredCard.razor (2)
3-4: Property name updated fromClassestoPreviewClassesThe property name in the
PreviewCodecomponent has been changed fromClassestoPreviewClasses. This change improves clarity by making the property name more specific to its purpose within the preview context.To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify if this change has been applied uniformly:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining usage of 'Classes' property in PreviewCode components # Test: Search for 'Classes' property in PreviewCode. Expect: No results or only in comments. rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' -g '!BlurredCard.razor' # Test: Confirm the new 'PreviewClasses' property is used consistently. Expect: Multiple results. rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*='
9-9: Type updated fromPreviewCode.SlotstoPreview.SlotsThe type of the
_classesvariable has been changed fromPreviewCode.SlotstoPreview.Slots. This change suggests a refactoring of the component structure, possibly to improve separation of concerns or to make theSlotstype more generally available.Let's verify the consistency of this change across the codebase:
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutConfigFull.html (4)
3-6: LGTM: Opacity settings are well-defined.The opacity values for different states (Disabled, Focus, Hover, and Divider) are clearly set and use consistent decimal notation. The values appear appropriate for their intended purposes.
8-14: LGTM: FontSize settings are well-structured.The FontSize property is initialized with a clear progression of sizes from extra small (Xs) to large (Lg). The use of "rem" units is commendable for ensuring better accessibility and responsive design.
16-22: LGTM: LineHeight settings are well-defined and consistent.The LineHeight property is initialized with a logical progression from extra small (Xs) to large (Lg). The use of "rem" units is consistent with the FontSize property, which is excellent for maintaining proportional scaling. The line height values appear appropriate in relation to the corresponding font sizes.
1-38: Overall, excellent implementation of the LayoutConfig constructor.This constructor provides a comprehensive set of default values for layout configuration, covering opacity, font sizes, line heights, border radii, and shadows. The use of separate objects (FontScale, BaseScale) for different property types is a good design choice, promoting modularity and potential reuse.
The consistent use of "rem" units for size-related properties is commendable, as it supports accessibility and responsive design. The progression of values from smaller to larger sizes is logical and well-thought-out.
Minor suggestions for improvement have been made, such as considering an extra small (Xs) size for the Radius property and improving the readability of shadow definitions. These changes could enhance the flexibility and maintainability of the code.
Great job on implementing this foundational piece of the layout system!
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/PreviewCodes/Variants.razor (2)
Line range hint
1-1: Verify the appropriateness of@rendermode InteractiveAutoThe
@rendermode InteractiveAutodirective at the top of the file is crucial for determining how this Blazor component is rendered and interacted with. Please ensure that this rendering mode is appropriate for theVariantscomponent and its childPreviewCodecomponents.Consider the following:
- Is this directive newly added or pre-existing?
- Does this rendering mode align with the intended behavior of the component?
- Are there any performance implications to consider with this rendering mode?
You may want to consult the Blazor documentation or your team's guidelines on when to use different rendering modes.
5-5: LGTM! Consistent property renaming across all instances.The change from
ClassestoPreviewClassesis applied consistently across all four instances of thePreviewCodecomponent. This renaming likely improves the clarity and specificity of the component's API.To ensure completeness of this change:
- Verify that the
PreviewCodecomponent's API documentation has been updated to reflect this property name change.- Check if there are any other files in the project that use the
PreviewCodecomponent and ensure they've been updated as well.You can use the following script to search for other usages of
PreviewCode:Also applies to: 10-10, 15-15, 20-20
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/PreviewCode.razor (2)
Line range hint
1-37: Ensure comprehensive testing of the entire component.While the introduction of the
<Preview>component is the only change in this file, it's crucial to verify that this modification doesn't inadvertently affect the functionality of the unchanged parts, such as the toolbar with buttons and the collapsible code snippet.Please ensure that:
- The toolbar buttons (Expand/Collapse code and Copy) still function correctly.
- The collapsible code snippet expands and collapses as expected.
- The overall layout and styling of the component remain consistent with the previous implementation.
Consider adding or updating unit tests and performing thorough manual testing to validate the component's behavior in various scenarios.
To assist in verifying the unchanged functionality, you can run the following script to check for any recent changes in related test files:
If there are no recent changes in the test files, consider updating them to cover the new implementation.
6-8: Approve the introduction of the<Preview>component with a request for additional information.The refactoring to use a
<Preview>component is a good improvement that simplifies the structure and potentially enhances reusability. However, to ensure the change is fully appropriate and doesn't introduce any regressions, please provide the following information:
- Can you share the implementation of the
Previewcomponent?- Where is the
_previewClassesvariable defined and what does it contain?- Have you verified that this change maintains the same visual appearance and functionality as the previous implementation?
To verify the usage and implementation of the
Previewcomponent, please run the following script:src/LumexUI/Theme/Layout/LayoutConfig.cs (2)
Line range hint
74-82: LGTM: Constructor changes forLineHeightinitialization.The initialization of the
LineHeightproperty in the constructor is well-implemented. It follows the same pattern as otherFontScaleproperties and uses appropriate rem values for different screen sizes. This addition enhances the layout configuration capabilities for typography.
Line range hint
18-19: Verify the impact ofLineHeightaddition on existing code.The addition of the
LineHeightproperty enhances theLayoutConfigclass. However, it's important to ensure that existing code usingLayoutConfigis updated to handle this new property if necessary.Please run the following script to check for potential impacts:
Also applies to: 74-82
✅ Verification successful
Continue verifying the impact of the
LineHeightaddition on existing code.Please run the following scripts to further assess the usage and potential impacts of the
LineHeightproperty:
The
LineHeightaddition has been successfully verified and integrated without introducing issues.
- The
LineHeightproperty is utilized inLumexThemeProvider.razor.csfor generating CSS variables.- No custom implementations or extensions of
LayoutConfigwere found, ensuring that the addition does not affect other parts of the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usages of LayoutConfig that might need updating # Search for LayoutConfig usages echo "Searching for LayoutConfig usages:" rg --type csharp "LayoutConfig" -A 5 -B 5 # Search for any custom implementations or extensions of LayoutConfig echo "Searching for custom implementations or extensions of LayoutConfig:" rg --type csharp "class.*:.*LayoutConfig" -A 10Length of output: 4062
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find all usages of the LineHeight property in LayoutConfig echo "Searching for LayoutConfig.LineHeight usages:" rg --type csharp "LayoutConfig\.LineHeight" -A 5 -B 5 echo "Searching for any references to LineHeight in the codebase:" rg --type csharp "\.LineHeight" -A 5 -B 5Length of output: 2373
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/Colors.razor (3)
Line range hint
1-124: Overall: Changes improve document structure and emphasisThe modifications to this file enhance the documentation by:
- Providing a clearer structure with the "Overview" section.
- Emphasizing important information about color configurability.
- Maintaining consistency between visual elements and underlying data structures.
These changes align well with the AI-generated summary and improve the overall quality of the documentation. The suggestions and verifications proposed in the review comments will further ensure consistency and clarity across the documentation.
82-82: Approved: Heading array updated for consistencyThe change in the _headings array from "Colors in LumexUI" to "Overview" maintains consistency with the earlier modification to the main section title. This ensures that any navigation or table of contents generated from these headings will accurately reflect the updated document structure.
To ensure that this change doesn't negatively impact the navigation or table of contents, please run the following script to check for any references to the old heading:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for references to the old heading "Colors in LumexUI" # Test: Search for any remaining references to "Colors in LumexUI" rg --type-add 'razor:*.razor' --type razor 'Colors in LumexUI'This will help identify any places where the old heading might still be used and need updating.
32-32: Approved: Callout variant change emphasizes important informationChanging the Callout variant from Info to Warning effectively highlights the crucial information about the non-configurability of common colors. This change will likely draw more attention to this important detail.
To ensure visual consistency across the documentation, please run the following script to check for other uses of Callout components:
This will help verify that the Warning variant is used appropriately and consistently throughout the documentation.
src/LumexUI/Theme/Colors/Models/ColorScale.cs (1)
15-16: Improved class documentationThe expanded description provides more clarity about the internal implementation of the
ColorScaleclass. This change aligns with best practices for documentation and helps developers better understand the class's structure.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/LayoutConfig.razor (1)
1-4: LGTM: File declaration and setup.The page route, namespace, and layout declarations are appropriate for this Blazor component documenting layout customization.
src/LumexUI/Scripts/Plugin/plugin.js (1)
178-183: LGTM: Addition oflineHeightproperty enhances theme customization.The new
lineHeightproperty in thetheme.extendobject is a valuable addition to the LumexUI plugin configuration. It provides consistent line height options that align with the existing font size definitions. This enhancement allows for more granular control over typography in the LumexUI framework.A few observations:
- The property names (tiny, small, medium, large) are consistent with the existing
fontSizeproperty, which is good for maintaining a coherent API.- The use of CSS variables (e.g.,
var(--lumex-line-height-tiny)) follows the established pattern in the file, ensuring flexibility and ease of customization.- The addition complements the existing
fontSizeproperty, which already references line height variables.This change improves the overall customization capabilities of the LumexUI theme without introducing any apparent issues.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/PreviewCode.razor.cs (3)
8-8: Class declaration is appropriate.Declaring
PreviewCodeas apartialclass allows the class definition to be split across multiple files, which is useful for managing complexity.
13-13: Addition of 'PreviewClasses' parameter enhances customization.The new parameter
[Parameter] public Preview.Slots? PreviewClasses { get; set; }enables consumers of thePreviewCodecomponent to customize CSS classes more flexibly.
24-26: Initialization of '_previewClasses' with default styling.Initializing
_previewClasseswith a default value forPreviewWrapperensures consistent styling by default.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/Preview.razor (1)
14-14: Ensure theTwMergeservice is properly registeredThe
TwMergeservice is injected into the component. Verify that it is registered in the dependency injection container to prevent runtime errors due to unresolved services.To confirm, run the following script:
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| @rendermode InteractiveAuto | |||
|
|
|||
| <PreviewCode Code="@new(name: null, snippet: "Card.Code.BlurredFooter")" | |||
| Classes="@(new() { Preview = "justify-center" })"> | |||
| PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "justify-center" })"> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent Usage of 'Classes' Attribute Detected
Several files still use the old Classes attribute instead of the updated PreviewClasses. Please update these instances to ensure consistency across the codebase:
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/Header.razor:Classes="@_navbarClasses"docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Components/PreviewCode.razor:<Preview Classes="@_previewClasses">docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Button/PreviewCodes/WithIcons.razor:PreviewClasses="@(new() { Preview = "max-w-fit bg-zinc-50" })"docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Card/Examples/CustomStyles.razor:<LumexCard Classes="@_classes">docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Pages/Components/Accordion/Examples/CustomStyles.razor:Classes="@(new() {Subtitle = "text-warning"})"
Please ensure all instances of Classes are replaced with PreviewClasses to maintain the updated component API.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM! Verify consistent usage across the codebase.
The change from Classes to PreviewClasses is a good refinement that improves the clarity of the component's API. This change likely reflects a more specific approach to managing preview-related classes.
To ensure consistency across the codebase, please run the following script:
This script will help identify any inconsistencies in the usage of the PreviewClasses attribute across the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of PreviewClasses attribute in PreviewCode components
# Test 1: Check for any remaining usage of the old 'Classes' attribute
echo "Checking for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute in PreviewCode components:"
rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*='
# Test 2: Verify the usage of the new 'PreviewClasses' attribute
echo "Verifying the usage of the new 'PreviewClasses' attribute in PreviewCode components:"
rg --type razor 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*='
Length of output: 522
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of PreviewClasses attribute in PreviewCode components
# Test 1: Check for any remaining usage of the old 'Classes' attribute
echo "Checking for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute in PreviewCode components:"
rg 'PreviewCode.*Classes\s*=' -g "*.razor"
# Test 2: Verify the usage of the new 'PreviewClasses' attribute
echo "Verifying the usage of the new 'PreviewClasses' attribute in PreviewCode components:"
rg 'PreviewCode.*PreviewClasses\s*=' -g "*.razor"
Length of output: 462
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Re-verify the usage of Classes and PreviewClasses attributes in PreviewCode components
# Test 1: Check for any remaining usage of the old 'Classes' attribute in .razor files
echo "Checking for any remaining usage of 'Classes' attribute in .razor files:"
rg 'Classes\s*=' -g "*.razor"
# Test 2: Verify the usage of the new 'PreviewClasses' attribute in .razor files
echo "Verifying the usage of the new 'PreviewClasses' attribute in .razor files:"
rg 'PreviewClasses\s*=' -g "*.razor"
Length of output: 9648
| @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ internal readonly record struct Navbar | |||
| .ToString(); | |||
|
|
|||
| private readonly static string _item = ElementClass.Empty() | |||
| .Add( "leading-6" ) | |||
| .Add( "leading-medium" ) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Usage of "leading-medium" appears isolated.
The "leading-medium" class is introduced in Navbar.cs, but it's not used elsewhere in the codebase. Please ensure that this class is defined correctly in the styling files and is intended solely for the Navbar. If it should be used across other components, consider updating those areas for consistency.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM, but clarification needed on PR scope.
The change from "leading-6" to "leading-medium" for navbar items is consistent with the styling approach used elsewhere in the file. This modification likely improves the flexibility of the navbar item styling by using a relative value instead of a fixed one.
However, this change seems unrelated to the PR's stated objective of adding a Layout page. Could you please clarify how this styling adjustment fits into the scope of the PR?
To ensure consistency, let's check if "leading-medium" is used elsewhere in the codebase:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for usage of "leading-medium" in the codebase
# Expected result: Find other occurrences of "leading-medium" to confirm consistent usage
rg --type cs 'leading-medium'
Length of output: 91
| protected override void OnInitialized() | ||
| { | ||
| // temp solution | ||
| _previewClasses.Preview += PreviewClasses?.Background; | ||
| _previewClasses.PreviewWrapper += PreviewClasses?.Background; | ||
| _previewClasses.Background += PreviewClasses?.Background; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor 'OnInitialized' method to replace temporary solution.
The OnInitialized method contains a temporary solution, as indicated by the comment // temp solution. Relying on temporary code can lead to maintenance issues.
Consider refactoring to provide a more robust and maintainable implementation. Here's a possible refactoring:
protected override void OnInitialized()
{
- // temp solution
- _previewClasses.Preview += PreviewClasses?.Background;
- _previewClasses.PreviewWrapper += PreviewClasses?.Background;
- _previewClasses.Background += PreviewClasses?.Background;
+ if (PreviewClasses != null)
+ {
+ _previewClasses.Preview = MergeClasses(_previewClasses.Preview, PreviewClasses.Preview);
+ _previewClasses.PreviewWrapper = MergeClasses(_previewClasses.PreviewWrapper, PreviewClasses.PreviewWrapper);
+ _previewClasses.Background = MergeClasses(_previewClasses.Background, PreviewClasses.Background);
+ }
}
+private string MergeClasses(string baseClass, string? additionalClass)
+{
+ if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(additionalClass))
+ {
+ return baseClass;
+ }
+ return $"{baseClass} {additionalClass}";
+}This refactoring introduces a MergeClasses helper method to safely concatenate CSS class strings, handling null and empty values appropriately.
Would you like assistance in implementing this refactoring?
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| private string? BackgroundClass => | ||
| TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty() | ||
| .Add( _slots.Background ) | ||
| .Add( Classes?.Background ) | ||
| .ToString() ); | ||
|
|
||
| private string? PreviewWrapperClass => | ||
| TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty() | ||
| .Add( _slots.PreviewWrapper ) | ||
| .Add( Classes?.PreviewWrapper ) | ||
| .ToString() ); | ||
|
|
||
| private string? PreviewClass => | ||
| TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty() | ||
| .Add( _slots.Preview ) | ||
| .Add( Classes?.Preview ) | ||
| .ToString() ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify class merging logic
You can streamline the merging of CSS classes by directly passing the class strings to TwMerge.Merge(), reducing code complexity.
Apply this diff to simplify the properties:
-private string? BackgroundClass =>
- TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty()
- .Add( _slots.Background )
- .Add( Classes?.Background )
- .ToString() );
+private string? BackgroundClass =>
+ TwMerge.Merge( _slots.Background, Classes?.Background );
-private string? PreviewWrapperClass =>
- TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty()
- .Add( _slots.PreviewWrapper )
- .Add( Classes?.PreviewWrapper )
- .ToString() );
+private string? PreviewWrapperClass =>
+ TwMerge.Merge( _slots.PreviewWrapper, Classes?.PreviewWrapper );
-private string? PreviewClass =>
- TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty()
- .Add( _slots.Preview )
- .Add( Classes?.Preview )
- .ToString() );
+private string? PreviewClass =>
+ TwMerge.Merge( _slots.Preview, Classes?.Preview );📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| private string? BackgroundClass => | |
| TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty() | |
| .Add( _slots.Background ) | |
| .Add( Classes?.Background ) | |
| .ToString() ); | |
| private string? PreviewWrapperClass => | |
| TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty() | |
| .Add( _slots.PreviewWrapper ) | |
| .Add( Classes?.PreviewWrapper ) | |
| .ToString() ); | |
| private string? PreviewClass => | |
| TwMerge.Merge( ElementClass.Empty() | |
| .Add( _slots.Preview ) | |
| .Add( Classes?.Preview ) | |
| .ToString() ); | |
| private string? BackgroundClass => | |
| TwMerge.Merge( _slots.Background, Classes?.Background ); | |
| private string? PreviewWrapperClass => | |
| TwMerge.Merge( _slots.PreviewWrapper, Classes?.PreviewWrapper ); | |
| private string? PreviewClass => | |
| TwMerge.Merge( _slots.Preview, Classes?.Preview ); |
desmondinho
had a problem deploying
to
Production
GitHub Actions
Failure
desmondinho
temporarily deployed
to
Production
GitHub Actions
Inactive
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (13)
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutTypesFontScale.html (2)
6-6: Consider using a more descriptive property name.The property name
Xsis not immediately clear. Consider using a more descriptive name likeExtraSmallSizeorXsSizeto improve readability and self-documentation.
6-6: Add XML documentation for theXsproperty.To maintain consistency with the class-level documentation, consider adding XML comments for the
Xsproperty to describe its purpose and any constraints.Example:
/// <summary> /// Gets or sets the extra small font size. /// </summary> public string? Xs { get; set; }docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutTypesBaseScale.html (1)
1-10: LGTM! Well-structured record with good documentation.The
BaseScalerecord is well-defined with appropriate XML documentation. The use of a record type for this data structure is a good choice, as it provides value-based equality and immutability by default.Consider adding more detailed XML comments for each property to explain their specific purposes and any constraints on their values.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Common/Navigation/Types.cs (4)
3-14: LGTM! Consider usingIReadOnlyListfor better encapsulation.The changes to the
Navigationclass look good. Converting from a record to a class provides more control over the implementation. Initializing_categorieswith an empty list ensures it's never null, which is a good practice.Making
CategoriesandAddpublic increases the class's accessibility, which might be beneficial for better integration with other components.Consider changing the return type of
CategoriestoIReadOnlyList<NavigationCategory>for better encapsulation:-public IEnumerable<NavigationCategory> Categories => _categories.AsEnumerable(); +public IReadOnlyList<NavigationCategory> Categories => _categories.AsReadOnly();This change prevents external modification of the list while still allowing enumeration and indexing.
16-29: LGTM! Consider usingIReadOnlyListfor better encapsulation.The changes to the
NavigationCategoryclass are well-implemented. The transition from a record to a class with a primary constructor maintains concise initialization while providing more control. Initializing_itemswith an empty list is a good practice to avoid null reference exceptions.Making
NameandIconpublic is appropriate if these properties need to be accessed for UI rendering. The change toAddmethod to acceptNavigationIteminstead of a string improves type safety and allows for more complex navigation items.Similar to the
Navigationclass, consider changing the return type ofItemstoIReadOnlyList<NavigationItem>for better encapsulation:-public IEnumerable<NavigationItem> Items => _items.AsEnumerable(); +public IReadOnlyList<NavigationItem> Items => _items.AsReadOnly();This change prevents external modification of the list while still allowing enumeration and indexing.
31-35: LGTM! Consider making the class sealed for better design.The introduction of the
NavigationItemclass is a good addition. It allows for more complex navigation items, including a "locked" state. The use of a primary constructor with property initialization is concise and clear. The default value forlockedis a good choice, as most items are likely to be unlocked by default.For consistency with the other classes in this file and to prevent unintended inheritance, consider making the
NavigationItemclass sealed:-internal class NavigationItem( string name, bool locked = false ) +internal sealed class NavigationItem( string name, bool locked = false )This change ensures that the class cannot be inherited, which can lead to better encapsulation and potentially easier maintenance in the future.
1-35: Overall, great improvements to the navigation system!The changes made to this file significantly enhance the design and functionality of the navigation system. The transition from records to classes, the consistent use of initialization, and the introduction of the
NavigationItemclass all contribute to a more flexible and type-safe implementation.These modifications appear to be part of a larger refactoring effort, which should result in a more robust and maintainable navigation system for the LumexUI documentation.
As the navigation system evolves, consider the following architectural suggestions:
- Implement the
IEquatable<T>interface for these classes if equality comparisons are needed.- Consider using the
System.Collections.Immutablenamespace for truly immutable collections if immutability is a design goal.- If this navigation structure becomes more complex, consider implementing a builder pattern for creating navigation hierarchies.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Components/Sidebar.razor (1)
38-70: LGTM with a minor suggestion: Consider extracting constantsThe
RenderItemmethod implementation is well-structured and includes improvements such as handling locked items. It correctly preserves the existing logic for different categories while enhancing the component's functionality.To further improve code clarity, consider extracting the string literal "Components API" into a constant. This would make the code more maintainable and reduce the risk of typos in future updates.
Here's a suggested improvement:
+ private const string COMPONENTS_API_CATEGORY = "Components API"; private void RenderItem( RenderTreeBuilder __builder, NavigationItem item, string categoryName ) { var formattedName = item.Name.Replace( "Lumex", "" ).SplitPascalCase(); - if( categoryName is "Components API" ) + if( categoryName == COMPONENTS_API_CATEGORY ) { // ... rest of the method } }docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Common/Navigation/NavigationStore.cs (1)
25-39: Approve changes and suggest documentation for locked componentsThe changes to the
ComponentsCategoryare consistent with the new syntax, improving code readability and maintainability.Consider adding documentation or comments explaining the significance of the
locked: trueparameter. This will help other developers understand which components are ready for use and which are still in development.Additionally, it might be beneficial to group locked and unlocked components separately for better organization and user clarity.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/Theme.razor (1)
151-151: LGTM! Consider updating the description for consistency.The change from "Theme Customization" to "Theme" simplifies the title and aligns it better with the URL structure. This is a good improvement for conciseness.
For consistency with the new title, consider slightly modifying the description to emphasize that this page is about the theme concept in general, not just customization. For example:
- description: "Theming allows you to customize the feel and look of components by defining global styles, colors, and design elements to align with your app's brand or preferences.", + description: "Learn about themes in LumexUI, including how to customize the feel and look of components by defining global styles, colors, and design elements to align with your app's brand or preferences.",This change maintains the existing information while better reflecting the broader scope implied by the new title.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/LayoutConfig.razor (3)
14-16: Improve the phrasing in the Callout for clarityConsider rephrasing the Callout message to enhance clarity.
- Typography and shadows were specifically defined for the customization of - components and may differ from the default settings provided by Tailwind CSS for similar configurations. + Typography and shadows have been specifically defined for component customization and may differ from the default settings provided by Tailwind CSS for similar configurations.
77-77: Userounded-*classes to apply border radius to all cornersCurrently, the examples only apply the border radius to the top-right corner using
rounded-tr-small,rounded-tr-medium, androunded-tr-large. To better showcase the effect of the border radius sizes, consider applying it to all corners by usingrounded-small,rounded-medium, androunded-large.-<div class="border-t-2 border-r-2 border-indigo-500 bg-indigo-50 w-16 h-8 rounded-tr-small"></div> +<div class="border-t-2 border-r-2 border-indigo-50 w-16 h-8 rounded-small"></div> -<div class="border-t-2 border-r-2 border-indigo-50 w-16 h-8 rounded-tr-medium"></div> +<div class="border-t-2 border-r-2 border-indigo-50 w-16 h-8 rounded-medium"></div> -<div class="border-t-2 border-r-2 border-indigo-50 w-16 h-8 rounded-tr-large"></div> +<div class="border-t-2 border-r-2 border-indigo-50 w-16 h-8 rounded-large"></div>Also applies to: 81-81, 85-85
191-191: Consider using standard placeholder text forDummyTextThe current
DummyTextcontains a long and specific anecdotal story, which may not be appropriate for documentation examples. Consider replacing it with standard placeholder text like "Lorem ipsum" to keep the focus on layout and styling examples.-private const string DummyText = "Jake thought he was making a smoothie, but halfway through blending, he realized he had added his dog's kibble instead of chia seeds. Determined not to waste food, he took a sip, only to find his dog staring at him in confusion. Now, every morning, they share breakfast—Jake with kibble, and the dog with chia seeds."; +private const string DummyText = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.";
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutTypesBaseScale.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutTypesFontScale.html (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Common/Navigation/NavigationStore.cs (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Common/Navigation/Types.cs (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Components/DocsApiSection.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Components/Sidebar.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/LayoutConfig.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Pages/Customization/Theme.razor (1 hunks)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/tailwind.config.js (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/tailwind.config.js
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (8)
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs.Client/Samples/Layout/layoutTypesFontScale.html (1)
1-8: LGTM! Well-structured record definition with proper documentation.The
FontScalerecord is well-defined and properly inherits fromBaseScale. The use of XML comments for documentation is good practice.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Components/DocsApiSection.razor (1)
17-17: LGTM! Addition of 'not-prose' class is appropriate.The addition of the 'not-prose' class to the LumexNavLink is a good practice. This change ensures that the link styling remains consistent and is not affected by any global prose styles that might be applied elsewhere in the documentation.
docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Components/Sidebar.razor (2)
30-30: LGTM: Improved code organizationThe extraction of item rendering logic into a separate method
RenderItemenhances code readability and maintainability. This change simplifies the main rendering loop and follows good coding practices by separating concerns.
36-37: LGTM: Well-structured method declarationThe
RenderItemmethod is well-defined with appropriate parameters and access modifier. It correctly usesRenderTreeBuilderfor low-level rendering, which is suitable for Razor components.docs/LumexUI.Docs/LumexUI.Docs/Common/Navigation/NavigationStore.cs (4)
18-21: Approve changes and inquire about new "Customize Theme" featureThe changes to the
CustomizationCategoryare consistent with the new syntax. The addition of the "Customize Theme" item is noted.Could you provide more information about the "Customize Theme" feature? What does the
locked: trueparameter signify in this context?
Line range hint
1-91: Summary of changes and their impactThe changes to the
NavigationStoreclass represent a significant improvement in code structure and type safety. The introduction of a new object-based syntax for adding navigation items allows for more flexibility and potential for additional properties (such as thelockedparameter) in the future.Key points:
- Consistent use of the new syntax across all categories improves code readability and maintainability.
- The introduction of the
lockedparameter suggests a mechanism for managing component visibility or availability.- Some components are marked as locked, indicating they may be under development or not yet ready for general use.
Recommendations:
- Provide documentation for the new navigation item type and its properties.
- Clarify the purpose and implications of the
lockedparameter.- Consider grouping locked and unlocked components for better organization.
- Review the commented-out items in the
ComponentsApiCategoryand decide on their inclusion or removal.Overall, these changes appear to enhance the flexibility and maintainability of the navigation system in the LumexUI documentation.
43-77: Approve changes and inquire about commented-out itemsThe changes to the
ComponentsApiCategoryare consistent with the new syntax used throughout the file, improving overall code consistency.Could you provide information about the commented-out items (e.g.,
LumexBooleanInputBase,LumexComponentBase, etc.)? Are these planned for future inclusion, or should they be removed entirely?To verify the status of these commented-out components, please run the following script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for the existence and usage of commented-out components # Test: Search for the existence of the commented-out components rg --type csharp -A 1 'class\s+(LumexBooleanInputBase|LumexComponentBase|LumexDebouncedInputBase|LumexInputBase|LumexInputFieldBase|LumexLinkBase)' # Test: Search for usage of these components in the codebase rg --type csharp -A 1 '(LumexBooleanInputBase|LumexComponentBase|LumexDebouncedInputBase|LumexInputBase|LumexInputFieldBase|LumexLinkBase)'This will help determine if these components still exist in the codebase and if they are being used elsewhere.
13-14: Approve changes and request clarification on new typeThe new syntax for adding items to the
GettingStartedCategoryimproves type safety and extensibility. This change is consistent with modern C# practices.Could you please clarify the type being used for these new objects? It would be helpful to understand the properties and methods available on this type.
To verify the usage of this new type across the codebase, please run the following script:
| public string? Sm { get; set; } | ||
| public string? Md { get; set; } | ||
| public string? Lg { get; set; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using non-nullable strings with default values.
The properties Sm, Md, and Lg are currently defined as nullable strings. Depending on the intended use of this record, you might want to consider making these non-nullable and providing default values. This could help prevent null reference exceptions and make the API more robust.
Here's a suggested improvement:
public record BaseScale
{
- public string? Sm { get; set; }
- public string? Md { get; set; }
- public string? Lg { get; set; }
+ public string Sm { get; init; } = string.Empty;
+ public string Md { get; init; } = string.Empty;
+ public string Lg { get; init; } = string.Empty;
}This change:
- Makes the properties non-nullable, ensuring they always have a value.
- Uses
initinstead ofsetto make the properties immutable after initialization. - Provides default values, maintaining flexibility while avoiding null values.
If you prefer to keep the properties nullable, consider adding validation logic to handle null cases appropriately in the consuming code.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public string? Sm { get; set; } | |
| public string? Md { get; set; } | |
| public string? Lg { get; set; } | |
| public string Sm { get; init; } = string.Empty; | |
| public string Md { get; init; } = string.Empty; | |
| public string Lg { get; init; } = string.Empty; |
Summary by CodeRabbit
Previewcomponent for customizable preview interfaces.