Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lots of scaffolding, a bit of UI #46

Merged
merged 25 commits into from
Mar 1, 2017
Merged

Lots of scaffolding, a bit of UI #46

merged 25 commits into from
Mar 1, 2017

Conversation

regexpressyourself
Copy link
Collaborator

@regexpressyourself regexpressyourself commented Feb 28, 2017

This pull request includes:

  • A webpack setup that enables ES6 goodness in react
    • You will need to install some npm modules to compile react. From the project root, run npm install (make sure you have npm on your machine...)
    • If you edit any components, be sure to run "webpack" from the project root to compile them
      • React components are compiled down into the /wwwroot/js/build folder
  • Add a link to the Create page on the nav
  • Add a "Add Step" button to the Edit page
    • Clicking the "Add Step" button brings up a modal with a form for the step
    • Form currently does not submit to anything
  • Add a css file to start using (main.css)
    • Might end up using the site.css file instead

regexpressyourself and others added 12 commits February 27, 2017 14:58
Create page now only prompts for flowchart name.

The first two react components are added. I need to add a loader for
them to allow for composition of components. I think webpack is the best bet here.
Tested functionality, it works.
Cleaned up the code a bit.
Using the CDN in _Layout instead
Form currently does not submit to anything.
@regexpressyourself
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@taylorflatt @Mikey1848 @reidtevonian

Got a lot added here. I did a test merge with master and it looked conflict free, but I wanted to give you guys a heads up before it all gets merged in. If you guys want to merge it in, that works great. If not, I'll merge it in tonight.


namespace FlowchartCreator.Controllers
{
// DEBUG: Comment/Uncomment this to require authentication to access this controller's components.
[Authorize]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably want to comment this out before pushing to the master branch. I might have missed it.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed 9a3a227

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just meant to comment it out not remove it. But either way works.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops. Fixed Fixed 3ac35d6

@@ -8,3 +8,23 @@ C:\Users\Taylor\Source\Repos\Flowchart-Creator-production\Flowchart\obj\Debug\ne
C:\Users\Taylor\Source\Repos\Flowchart-Creator-production\Flowchart\obj\Debug\netcoreapp1.0\FlowchartCreator.pdb
C:\Users\Taylor\Source\Repos\Flowchart-Creator-production\Flowchart\obj\Debug\netcoreapp1.0\UserSecretsAssemblyInfo.cs
C:\Users\Taylor\Source\Repos\Flowchart-Creator-production\Flowchart\obj\Debug\netcoreapp1.0\FlowchartCreator.csprojResolveAssemblyReference.cache
C:\Users\Sam\Desktop\Flowchart-Creator-production\Flowchart\bin\Debug\netcoreapp1.0\FlowchartCreator.deps.json
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't these be excluded and purged from master? Similar for other references specific to the dev env.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah I think so, but I didn't want to mess anything up for anyone else. Is there anything in the netcoreapp1.0 folder that we would need? Ca I just ignore the whole thing?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't have it in front of me but you could just try deleting it and running the project. My guess is that it will be generated if it doesn't already exist. I never used to have this prior to .NET Core.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Coolio. I saw this post that says I can just kill off the entire bin and obj directories in git, so I did that. Woo!!

See 016b235 for specifics

@taylorflatt
Copy link
Member

@regexpressyourself Can you clear up some ignorance on my part? Is there a reason the client/server is so large and why we need both? I thought you were mentioning that we should be running these on the server side. So shouldn't the server bundle be the only one included?

@regexpressyourself
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@regexpressyourself Can you clear up some ignorance on my part? Is there a reason the client/server is so large and why we need both? I thought you were mentioning that we should be running these on the server side. So shouldn't the server bundle be the only one included?

@taylorflatt Don't worry, you're not the only ignorant one here :)

I'm not 100% sure how to run them server side just yet. Technically we could get by with only the client side, as that is all that's being run, but I want to include the scaffolding for server side rendering later.

Server side will help performance in production, but is a pain to use when in development because I would have to rebuild the project to test changes (I think...again not 100% on this stuff yet).

As for why we have both, we can choose to render some components on the server and some on the client as we see fit. Mostly static components can be rendered server-side, and more dynamic components can be rendered client side.

Concerning the size, I'm not sure why they're so big. I know I can minify them, but that doesn't reduce the code size, just the file size. They're being rendered by Babel; I can look into some options to make it more streamlined.

@taylorflatt
Copy link
Member

@regexpressyourself That's fine. I don't mind doing it either way. Which plan do you think you are going to pursue? Combination? Client only?

@regexpressyourself
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@taylorflatt Ideally, I'd like to render as much on server side as possible. Whether that will end up being everything or not, I'm not sure. Regardless, I think it's a problem for sprint 3, since the react stuff should be mostly done before we start adding it to the server.

Re: the file size. I found a thread on the topic. Consensus is basically to minify the code for production.

@taylorflatt
Copy link
Member

@regexpressyourself No problem. That seems reasonable. I was going to advocate for an either-or approach to minimize code/complexity/size of the solution. Only introduce what we need when we need it so we don't forget to go back and remove the extraneous parts.

But use what you need. I think I am fine with the pull but I think we should still take a look at those other files so they aren't constantly updated.

@regexpressyourself
Copy link
Collaborator Author

regexpressyourself commented Feb 28, 2017

we should still take a look at those other files so they aren't constantly updated.

@taylorflatt Agreed!! I just did it. See 016b235 and this

@taylorflatt taylorflatt added this to the Sprint-1 milestone Feb 28, 2017
Commiting early to work on seperate machine
Sass was proving difficult to install. Might revisit it later.
@regexpressyourself regexpressyourself merged commit b681591 into master Mar 1, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants