Comment Styling #2510
|
@ -46,7 +46,8 @@
|
|||
"electron-log": "^2.2.12",
|
||||
"electron-updater": "^4.0.6",
|
||||
"express": "^4.16.4",
|
||||
"keytar": "^4.4.1"
|
||||
"keytar": "^4.4.1",
|
||||
"tiny-relative-date": "^1.3.0"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"devDependencies": {
|
||||
"@babel/core": "^7.0.0",
|
||||
|
@ -122,7 +123,7 @@
|
|||
"jsmediatags": "^3.8.1",
|
||||
"json-loader": "^0.5.4",
|
||||
"lbry-format": "https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-format.git",
|
||||
"lbry-redux": "lbryio/lbry-redux#3c862e72b36e620155b9c968be9b2bcbd9e0580c",
|
||||
"lbry-redux": "lbryio/lbry-redux#141593500693a93db74c62ef5a9fe67b43896603",
|
||||
"lbryinc": "lbryio/lbryinc#43d382d9b74d396a581a74d87e4c53105e04f845",
|
||||
"lint-staged": "^7.0.2",
|
||||
"localforage": "^1.7.1",
|
||||
|
@ -148,7 +149,7 @@
|
|||
"react-dom": "^16.8.2",
|
||||
"react-feather": "^1.0.8",
|
||||
"react-ga": "^2.5.7",
|
||||
"react-hot-loader": "^4.7.2",
|
||||
"react-hot-loader": "^4.11.1",
|
||||
"react-modal": "^3.1.7",
|
||||
"react-paginate": "^5.2.1",
|
||||
"react-pose": "^4.0.5",
|
||||
|
|
7
src/ui/component/comment/index.js
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import Comment from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(
|
||||
null,
|
||||
null
|
||||
)(Comment);
|
36
src/ui/component/comment/view.jsx
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
|||
// @flow
|
||||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
import relativeDate from 'tiny-relative-date';
|
||||
|
||||
type Props = {
|
||||
author: string,
|
||||
message: string,
|
||||
timePosted: number,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
function Comment(props: Props) {
|
||||
const { author, timePosted, message } = props;
|
||||
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<li className="comment">
|
||||
<div className="comment__meta card__actions--between">
|
||||
<strong>{author || __('Anonymous')}</strong>
|
||||
|
||||
<time dateTime={timePosted}>{relativeDate(timePosted)}</time>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>{message}</p>
|
||||
{/* The following is for adding threaded replies, upvoting and downvoting */}
|
||||
{/* <div className="comment__actions card__actions--between"> */}
|
||||
{/* <button className={'button button--primary'}>Reply</button> */}
|
||||
|
||||
{/* <span className="comment__actions-wrap"> */}
|
||||
{/* <button className="comment__action upvote">Up</button> */}
|
||||
{/* <button className="comment__action downvote">Down</button> */}
|
||||
{/* </span> */}
|
||||
{/* </div> */}
|
||||
</li>
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export default Comment;
|
17
src/ui/component/commentCreate/index.js
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
|
||||
import { doCommentCreate, makeSelectClaimForUri } from 'lbry-redux';
|
||||
import { CommentCreate } from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const select = (state, props) => ({
|
||||
claim: makeSelectClaimForUri(props.uri)(state),
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
const perform = dispatch => ({
|
||||
createComment: (comment, claimId, channel) => dispatch(doCommentCreate(comment, claimId, channel)),
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(
|
||||
select,
|
||||
perform
|
||||
)(CommentCreate);
|
83
src/ui/component/commentCreate/view.jsx
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
|
|||
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
// @flow
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
import { CHANNEL_NEW } from 'constants/claim';
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
import { FormField, Form } from 'component/common/form';
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
import Button from 'component/button';
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
import ChannelSection from 'component/selectChannel';
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
import usePersistedState from 'util/use-persisted-state';
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
type Props = {
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
uri: string,
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
claim: StreamClaim,
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
createComment: (string, string, string) => void,
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
};
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
export function CommentCreate(props: Props) {
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
const { createComment, claim } = props;
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
const { claim_id: claimId } = claim;
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
const [commentValue, setCommentValue] = usePersistedState(`comment-${claimId}`, '');
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
const [commentAck, setCommentAck] = usePersistedState('comment-acknowledge', false);
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
const [channel, setChannel] = usePersistedState('comment-channel', 'anonymous');
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
function handleCommentChange(event) {
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
setCommentValue(event.target.value);
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
function handleChannelChange(channel) {
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
setChannel(channel);
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
function handleCommentAck(event) {
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
setCommentAck(true);
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
function handleSubmit() {
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
if (channel !== CHANNEL_NEW && commentValue.length) createComment(commentValue, claimId, channel);
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
setCommentValue('');
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
return (
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<React.Fragment>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
{commentAck !== true && (
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
if if `commentAck` is false it looks like this returns nothing, so this could probably be tidied down to one check
if it's false, it shows you the acknowledgment box. if it's false, it shows you the acknowledgment box.
if it's true, it shows you the commenting tool.
|
||||
<section>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<div className="card__content">
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<div className="media__title">About comments..</div>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<div className="card__content">
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<div className="media__subtitle">I acknowledge something.</div>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<div className="card__content">
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<Button button="primary" onClick={handleCommentAck} label={__('Got it!')} />
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
)}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
{commentAck === true && (
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<section>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<Form onSubmit={handleSubmit}>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<div className="card__content">
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<ChannelSection channel={channel} onChannelChange={handleChannelChange} />
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<div className="card__content">
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<FormField
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
disabled={channel === CHANNEL_NEW}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
type="textarea"
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
name="content_description"
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
label={__('Comment')}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
placeholder={__('Your comment')}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
value={commentValue}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
onChange={handleCommentChange}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
/>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<div className="card__actions">
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
<Button
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
button="primary"
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
disabled={channel === CHANNEL_NEW || !commentValue.length}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
type="submit"
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
label={__('Post')}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
/>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</Form>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
)}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
</React.Fragment>
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
);
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
||||
}
|
||||
Instead of Instead of `'no'`, this can just be a boolean
I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being. I'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.
@kauffj was going to do some copy for this section. @kauffj was going to do some copy for this section.
I am all for I am all for `const`ing all special values, but this one could probably be skipped
The The `new` here is a value that comes from `<ChannelSection>`, which _is_ the right time to use a `const` (otherwise, when editing `ChannelSection`, I'd have to check every place it is embedded and manually read all of that code to see if `"new"` is being used or checked against).
|
16
src/ui/component/commentsList/index.js
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import { makeSelectCommentsForUri, doCommentList } from 'lbry-redux';
|
||||
import CommentsList from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const select = (state, props) => ({
|
||||
comments: makeSelectCommentsForUri(props.uri)(state),
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
const perform = dispatch => ({
|
||||
fetchComments: uri => dispatch(doCommentList(uri)),
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(
|
||||
select,
|
||||
perform
|
||||
)(CommentsList);
|
38
src/ui/component/commentsList/view.jsx
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
|||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
// @flow
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
import React, { useEffect } from 'react';
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
import Comment from 'component/comment';
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
type Props = {
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
comments: Array<any>,
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
fetchComments: string => void,
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
uri: string,
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
};
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
function CommentList(props: Props) {
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
const { fetchComments, uri, comments } = props;
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
useEffect(() => {
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
fetchComments(uri);
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
}, [fetchComments, uri]);
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
return (
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
<ul className="comments">
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
{comments &&
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
comments.map(comment => {
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
return (
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
<Comment
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
author={comment.channel_name}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
claimId={comment.channel_id}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
commentId={comment.comment_id}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
key={comment.channel_id + comment.comment_id}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
message={comment.comment}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
parentId={comment.parent_id || null}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
timePosted={comment.timestamp * 1000}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
/>
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
);
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
})}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
);
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
}
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
||||
export default CommentList;
|
||||
Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file Comment should be broken into it's own file. Then in CommentsList, pass `commentId` that can be used to select the comment.
Then if we ever require more data to display a comment, we only have to update one place, instead of having to pass another prop to it in this file
` <strong>{this.props.author ? this.props.author : __("Anonymous") }</strong>`
(note i18n call as well as simplification) (note i18n call as well as simplification)
comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides comment is always applied as a class, so could be omitted from both sides
Use this
in place of
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on my branch Use this
```js
{this.props.author}
```
in place of
```js
<Button className="button--uri-indicator" navigate={this.props.uri}>
{inner}
</Button>
);
}
```
The schema you're using is a little out of date, you may want to compare it with the one I have on [my branch](https://github.com/osilkin98/lbry-desktop/blob/953ee3988fc6ca4af2514c9dd2a3761764feccfd/src/ui/component/uriIndicator/view.jsx#L6)
|
|
@ -154,6 +154,7 @@ export class FormField extends React.PureComponent<Props> {
|
|||
} else if (type === 'textarea') {
|
||||
input = (
|
||||
<fieldset-section>
|
||||
<label htmlFor={name}>{label}</label>
|
||||
<textarea type={type} id={name} {...inputProps} />
|
||||
</fieldset-section>
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -4,12 +4,9 @@ import {
|
|||
makeSelectContentTypeForUri,
|
||||
makeSelectMetadataForUri,
|
||||
makeSelectFileInfoForUri,
|
||||
doToast,
|
||||
} from 'lbry-redux';
|
||||
import { selectUser } from 'lbryinc';
|
||||
import { doOpenFileInFolder } from 'redux/actions/file';
|
||||
import { selectHasClickedComment } from 'redux/selectors/app';
|
||||
import { doClickCommentButton } from 'redux/actions/app';
|
||||
import FileDetails from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const select = (state, props) => ({
|
||||
|
@ -17,14 +14,11 @@ const select = (state, props) => ({
|
|||
contentType: makeSelectContentTypeForUri(props.uri)(state),
|
||||
fileInfo: makeSelectFileInfoForUri(props.uri)(state),
|
||||
metadata: makeSelectMetadataForUri(props.uri)(state),
|
||||
hasClickedComment: selectHasClickedComment(state),
|
||||
user: selectUser(state),
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
const perform = dispatch => ({
|
||||
openFolder: path => dispatch(doOpenFileInFolder(path)),
|
||||
showSnackBar: message => dispatch(doToast({ message })),
|
||||
clickCommentButton: () => dispatch(doClickCommentButton()),
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
|
|||
// @flow
|
||||
import React, { Fragment, PureComponent } from 'react';
|
||||
import { Lbryio } from 'lbryinc';
|
||||
import MarkdownPreview from 'component/common/markdown-preview';
|
||||
import Button from 'component/button';
|
||||
import Expandable from 'component/expandable';
|
||||
|
@ -12,33 +11,12 @@ type Props = {
|
|||
metadata: StreamMetadata,
|
||||
openFolder: string => void,
|
||||
contentType: string,
|
||||
clickCommentButton: () => void,
|
||||
showSnackBar: React$Node => void,
|
||||
hasClickedComment: boolean,
|
||||
user: ?any,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
class FileDetails extends PureComponent<Props> {
|
||||
constructor() {
|
||||
super();
|
||||
(this: any).handleCommentClick = this.handleCommentClick.bind(this);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
handleCommentClick() {
|
||||
const { clickCommentButton, showSnackBar } = this.props;
|
||||
|
||||
clickCommentButton();
|
||||
Lbryio.call('user_tag', 'edit', { add: 'comments-waitlist' });
|
||||
showSnackBar(
|
||||
<span>
|
||||
{__('Thanks! Comments are coming soon')}
|
||||
<sup>TM</sup>
|
||||
</span>
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
render() {
|
||||
const { claim, contentType, fileInfo, metadata, openFolder, hasClickedComment, user } = this.props;
|
||||
const { claim, contentType, fileInfo, metadata, openFolder } = this.props;
|
||||
|
||||
if (!claim || !metadata) {
|
||||
return (
|
||||
|
@ -104,26 +82,6 @@ class FileDetails extends PureComponent<Props> {
|
|||
)}
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</Expandable>
|
||||
|
||||
<div className="media__info-title">Comments</div>
|
||||
|
||||
<div className="card__actions--center">
|
||||
<Button
|
||||
data-id="add-comment"
|
||||
disabled={hasClickedComment}
|
||||
button="primary"
|
||||
label={__('Want to comment?')}
|
||||
onClick={this.handleCommentClick}
|
||||
/>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
{hasClickedComment && (
|
||||
<p className="media__info-text media__info-text--center">
|
||||
{user
|
||||
? __('Your support has been added. You will be notified when comments are available.')
|
||||
: __('Your support has been added. Comments are coming soon.')}
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
)}
|
||||
</Fragment>
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -1,43 +1,57 @@
|
|||
// @flow
|
||||
import { remote } from 'electron';
|
||||
import React, { Suspense } from 'react';
|
||||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
import LoadingScreen from 'component/common/loading-screen';
|
||||
import VideoViewer from 'component/viewers/videoViewer';
|
||||
|
||||
const AudioViewer = React.lazy<*>(() =>
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "audioViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/audioViewer')
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "audioViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/audioViewer'
|
||||
)
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
const DocumentViewer = React.lazy<*>(() =>
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "documentViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/documentViewer')
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "documentViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/documentViewer'
|
||||
)
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
const DocxViewer = React.lazy<*>(() =>
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "docxViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/docxViewer')
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "docxViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/docxViewer'
|
||||
)
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
const HtmlViewer = React.lazy<*>(() =>
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "htmlViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/htmlViewer')
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "htmlViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/htmlViewer'
|
||||
)
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
const PdfViewer = React.lazy<*>(() =>
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "pdfViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/pdfViewer')
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "pdfViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/pdfViewer'
|
||||
)
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
// @if TARGET='app'
|
||||
const ComicBookViewer = React.lazy<*>(() =>
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "comicBookViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/comicBookViewer')
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "comicBookViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/comicBookViewer'
|
||||
)
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
const ThreeViewer = React.lazy<*>(() =>
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "threeViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/threeViewer')
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "threeViewer" */
|
||||
'component/viewers/threeViewer'
|
||||
)
|
||||
);
|
||||
// @endif
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -174,7 +188,7 @@ class FileRender extends React.PureComponent<Props> {
|
|||
|
||||
// @if TARGET='web'
|
||||
// temp workaround to disabled paid content on web
|
||||
if (claim && claim.value.fee && claim.value.fee.amount > 0) {
|
||||
if (claim && claim.value.fee && Number(claim.value.fee.amount) > 0) {
|
||||
const paidMessage = __(
|
||||
'Currently, only free content is available on lbry.tv. Try viewing it in the desktop app.'
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -76,7 +76,9 @@ class FileViewer extends React.PureComponent<Props> {
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
this.handleAutoplay(this.props);
|
||||
window.addEventListener('keydown', this.handleKeyDown);
|
||||
// Commented out because it would play/pause if you were typing in the comment field
|
||||
// Need a way to check if you are typing
|
||||
// window.addEventListener('keydown', this.handleKeyDown);
|
||||
}
|
||||
is this functionality being removed? maybe comment out the function too and explain why if it's anticipated that it returns? is this functionality being removed? maybe comment out the function too and explain why if it's anticipated that it returns?
@jessopb I'm fixing most of my own comments but I don't know what or why this was changed, so I'm leaving as is @jessopb I'm fixing most of my own comments but I don't know what or why this was changed, so I'm leaving as is
|
||||
|
||||
componentDidUpdate(prev: Props) {
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -157,7 +157,13 @@ class ChannelSection extends React.PureComponent<Props, State> {
|
|||
<BusyIndicator message="Updating channels" />
|
||||
) : (
|
||||
<fieldset-section>
|
||||
<FormField name="channel" type="select" onChange={this.handleChannelChange} value={channel}>
|
||||
<FormField
|
||||
name="channel"
|
||||
label={__('Channel')}
|
||||
type="select"
|
||||
onChange={this.handleChannelChange}
|
||||
value={channel}
|
||||
>
|
||||
<option value={CHANNEL_ANONYMOUS}>{__('Anonymous')}</option>
|
||||
{channels.map(({ name }) => (
|
||||
<option key={name} value={name}>
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -1,10 +1,12 @@
|
|||
// @flow
|
||||
import React, { Suspense } from 'react';
|
||||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
import { stopContextMenu } from 'util/context-menu';
|
||||
import analytics from 'analytics';
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "videojs" */
|
||||
/* webpackPreload: true */
|
||||
'video.js/dist/video-js.css');
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "videojs" */
|
||||
/* webpackPreload: true */
|
||||
'video.js/dist/video-js.css'
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
type Props = {
|
||||
source: {
|
||||
|
@ -44,10 +46,12 @@ class AudioVideoViewer extends React.PureComponent<Props> {
|
|||
sources,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
import(/* webpackChunkName: "videojs" */
|
||||
/* webpackMode: "lazy" */
|
||||
/* webpackPreload: true */
|
||||
'video.js').then(videojs => {
|
||||
import(
|
||||
/* webpackChunkName: "videojs" */
|
||||
/* webpackMode: "lazy" */
|
||||
/* webpackPreload: true */
|
||||
'video.js'
|
||||
).then(videojs => {
|
||||
if (videojs.__esModule) {
|
||||
videojs = videojs.default;
|
||||
this.player = videojs(this.videoNode, videoJsOptions, () => {});
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ import classnames from 'classnames';
|
|||
import getMediaType from 'util/get-media-type';
|
||||
import RecommendedContent from 'component/recommendedContent';
|
||||
import ClaimTags from 'component/claimTags';
|
||||
import CommentsList from 'component/commentsList';
|
||||
import CommentCreate from 'component/commentCreate';
|
||||
|
||||
type Props = {
|
||||
claim: StreamClaim,
|
||||
|
@ -285,6 +287,10 @@ class FilePage extends React.Component<Props> {
|
|||
</div>
|
||||
<div className="media__info--large">
|
||||
<FileDetails uri={uri} />
|
||||
|
||||
<div className="media__info-title">{__('Comments')}</div>
|
||||
<CommentCreate uri={uri} />
|
||||
<CommentsList uri={uri} />
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div className="grid-area--related">
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ import {
|
|||
walletReducer,
|
||||
notificationsReducer,
|
||||
tagsReducerBuilder,
|
||||
commentReducer,
|
||||
} from 'lbry-redux';
|
||||
import { userReducer, rewardsReducer, costInfoReducer, blacklistReducer, homepageReducer, statsReducer } from 'lbryinc';
|
||||
import appReducer from 'redux/reducers/app';
|
||||
|
@ -34,6 +35,7 @@ export default history =>
|
|||
availability: availabilityReducer,
|
||||
blacklist: blacklistReducer,
|
||||
claims: claimsReducer,
|
||||
comments: commentReducer,
|
||||
content: contentReducer,
|
||||
costInfo: costInfoReducer,
|
||||
fileInfo: fileInfoReducer,
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ export type AppState = {
|
|||
isUpgradeAvailable: ?boolean,
|
||||
isUpgradeSkipped: ?boolean,
|
||||
hasClickedComment: boolean,
|
||||
enhancedLayout: boolean,
|
||||
searchOptionsExpanded: boolean,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
|
|||
@import 'component/button';
|
||||
@import 'component/card';
|
||||
@import 'component/channel';
|
||||
@import 'component/comments';
|
||||
@import 'component/content';
|
||||
@import 'component/credit';
|
||||
@import 'component/dat-gui';
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -25,10 +25,6 @@
|
|||
.card--section {
|
||||
position: relative;
|
||||
padding: var(--spacing-large);
|
||||
|
||||
.card__content:not(:last-of-type) {
|
||||
margin-bottom: var(--spacing-large);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
.card--space-between {
|
||||
|
@ -100,6 +96,10 @@
|
|||
// C O N T E N T
|
||||
|
||||
.card__content {
|
||||
&:not(:last-of-type) {
|
||||
margin-bottom: var(--spacing-medium);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
p:not(:last-child) {
|
||||
margin-bottom: var(--spacing-medium);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
55
src/ui/scss/component/_comments.scss
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
|||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
.comments {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
margin-top: var(--spacing-large);
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
}
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
.comment {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
padding: var(--spacing-medium) 0;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
&:not(:last-of-type) {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
border-bottom: 1px solid var(--lbry-gray-1);
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
[data-mode='dark'] & {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
border-color: rgba($lbry-gray-5, 0.2);
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
}
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
}
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
}
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// .comment__actions-wrap {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// align-items: center;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// display: flex;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// justify-content: space-between;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// width: 4.5rem;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// }
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// .comment__action {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// @include hide-text;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// width: 0;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// height: 0;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// transition: border-color 0.2s;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// &.downvote {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// border-top: 2rem solid var(--lbry-orange-3);
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// border-right: 1rem solid transparent;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// border-left: 1rem solid transparent;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// &:hover {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// border-top-color: var(--lbry-yellow-3);
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// }
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// }
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// &.upvote {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// border-right: 1rem solid transparent;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// border-bottom: 2rem solid var(--lbry-teal-4);
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// border-left: 1rem solid transparent;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// &:hover {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// border-bottom-color: var(--lbry-green-2);
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// }
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// }
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
// }
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
.comment__meta {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
time {
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
opacity: 0.3;
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
}
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
||||
}
|
||||
We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes. We're not doing upvotes/downvotes. The only time I can see that is if when move to using claims as comments, we can count supports with say, 10 confirmations as being upvotes.
this should be the class this should be the class `comment--reply` and be a first-class rule (i.e. not nested) if we're following BEM
please comment out any CSS that is not being used please comment out any CSS that is not being used
|
|
@ -4,7 +4,12 @@ export default function usePersistedState(key, firstTimeDefault) {
|
|||
// If no key is passed in, act as a normal `useState`
|
||||
let defaultValue;
|
||||
if (key) {
|
||||
defaultValue = localStorage.getItem(key);
|
||||
const item = localStorage.getItem(key);
|
||||
if (item === 'true') {
|
||||
defaultValue = true;
|
||||
} else if (item === 'false') {
|
||||
defaultValue = false;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (!defaultValue) {
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -287,5 +287,11 @@
|
|||
"% complete": "% complete",
|
||||
"Updates published": "Updates published",
|
||||
"Your updates have been published to LBRY at the address": "Your updates have been published to LBRY at the address",
|
||||
"The updates will take a few minutes to appear for other LBRY users. Until then your file will be listed as \"pending\" under your published files.": "The updates will take a few minutes to appear for other LBRY users. Until then your file will be listed as \"pending\" under your published files."
|
||||
"The updates will take a few minutes to appear for other LBRY users. Until then your file will be listed as \"pending\" under your published files.": "The updates will take a few minutes to appear for other LBRY users. Until then your file will be listed as \"pending\" under your published files.",
|
||||
"Comments": "Comments",
|
||||
"Comment": "Comment",
|
||||
"Your comment": "Your comment",
|
||||
"Post": "Post",
|
||||
"Channel": "Channel",
|
||||
"No modifier provided after separator %s.": "No modifier provided after separator %s."
|
||||
}
|
17
yarn.lock
|
@ -6641,9 +6641,9 @@ lazy-val@^1.0.3, lazy-val@^1.0.4:
|
|||
yargs "^13.2.2"
|
||||
zstd-codec "^0.1.1"
|
||||
|
||||
lbry-redux@lbryio/lbry-redux#3c862e72b36e620155b9c968be9b2bcbd9e0580c:
|
||||
lbry-redux@lbryio/lbry-redux#141593500693a93db74c62ef5a9fe67b43896603:
|
||||
version "0.0.1"
|
||||
resolved "https://codeload.github.com/lbryio/lbry-redux/tar.gz/3c862e72b36e620155b9c968be9b2bcbd9e0580c"
|
||||
resolved "https://codeload.github.com/lbryio/lbry-redux/tar.gz/141593500693a93db74c62ef5a9fe67b43896603"
|
||||
dependencies:
|
||||
proxy-polyfill "0.1.6"
|
||||
reselect "^3.0.0"
|
||||
|
@ -9469,10 +9469,10 @@ react-ga@^2.5.7:
|
|||
resolved "https://registry.yarnpkg.com/react-ga/-/react-ga-2.5.7.tgz#1c80a289004bf84f84c26d46f3a6a6513081bf2e"
|
||||
integrity sha512-UmATFaZpEQDO96KFjB5FRLcT6hFcwaxOmAJZnjrSiFN/msTqylq9G+z5Z8TYzN/dbamDTiWf92m6MnXXJkAivQ==
|
||||
|
||||
react-hot-loader@^4.7.2:
|
||||
version "4.8.7"
|
||||
resolved "https://registry.yarnpkg.com/react-hot-loader/-/react-hot-loader-4.8.7.tgz#8bcec3105d4e0e3cba52aa59800568fc9fb3322d"
|
||||
integrity sha512-ctWAu8iwp37qd4w1qhjN6neDA1e5bSmAUY46L2l5SeK+i8AfzX+7lrpaLW4TJVaiBv5MlqIzA1ClNnvlvsy5Lg==
|
||||
react-hot-loader@^4.11.1:
|
||||
version "4.11.1"
|
||||
resolved "https://registry.yarnpkg.com/react-hot-loader/-/react-hot-loader-4.11.1.tgz#2cabbd0f1c8a44c28837b86d6ce28521e6d9a8ac"
|
||||
integrity sha512-HAC0UedYzM3mD+ZaQHesntFO0yi2ftOV4ZMMRTj43E4GvW5sQqYTPvur+6J7EaH3MDr/RqjDKXyCqKepV8+y7w==
|
||||
dependencies:
|
||||
fast-levenshtein "^2.0.6"
|
||||
global "^4.3.0"
|
||||
|
@ -11213,6 +11213,11 @@ tiny-invariant@^1.0.2:
|
|||
resolved "https://registry.yarnpkg.com/tiny-invariant/-/tiny-invariant-1.0.4.tgz#346b5415fd93cb696b0c4e8a96697ff590f92463"
|
||||
integrity sha512-lMhRd/djQJ3MoaHEBrw8e2/uM4rs9YMNk0iOr8rHQ0QdbM7D4l0gFl3szKdeixrlyfm9Zqi4dxHCM2qVG8ND5g==
|
||||
|
||||
tiny-relative-date@^1.3.0:
|
||||
version "1.3.0"
|
||||
resolved "https://registry.yarnpkg.com/tiny-relative-date/-/tiny-relative-date-1.3.0.tgz#fa08aad501ed730f31cc043181d995c39a935e07"
|
||||
integrity sha512-MOQHpzllWxDCHHaDno30hhLfbouoYlOI8YlMNtvKe1zXbjEVhbcEovQxvZrPvtiYW630GQDoMMarCnjfyfHA+A==
|
||||
|
||||
tiny-warning@^1.0.0:
|
||||
version "1.0.2"
|
||||
resolved "https://registry.yarnpkg.com/tiny-warning/-/tiny-warning-1.0.2.tgz#1dfae771ee1a04396bdfde27a3adcebc6b648b28"
|
||||
|
|
Instead of
'no'
, this can just be a booleanI'm not sure if we need a title along with this? I guess it depends on what that messaging ends up being.