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

feat(rule): css-orientation-lock (wcag21) #1081

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Aug 21, 2018
Merged

Conversation

jeeyyy
Copy link
Contributor

@jeeyyy jeeyyy commented Aug 21, 2018

Note: This PR was branched from previous PR - #971 to have a cleaner commit history (without all the trials to fix CI failures). All reviews/ comments from the above PR has been tacked.

New rule:

  • WCAG 2.1 rule
  • Rule Id: css-orientation-lock
  • Description: Ensures that the content is not locked to any specific display orientation, and functionality of the content is operable in all display orientations (portrait/ landscape).

Closes Issue:

Reviewer checks

Required fields, to be filled out by PR reviewer(s)

  • Follows the commit message policy, appropriate for next version
  • Has documentation updated, a DU ticket, or requires no documentation change
  • Includes new tests, or was unnecessary
  • Code is reviewed for security by: << Name here >>

@jeeyyy jeeyyy requested a review from a team as a code owner August 21, 2018 10:02
@jeeyyy jeeyyy changed the title feat(rule): css-orientation-lock new wcag21 rule feat(rule): css-orientation-lock (wcag21) Aug 21, 2018
@jeeyyy jeeyyy requested a review from WilcoFiers August 21, 2018 13:38
@jeeyyy
Copy link
Contributor Author

jeeyyy commented Aug 21, 2018

@WilcoFiers - Please review.

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ describe('frame-wait-time option', function() {
var opts = {
frameWaitTime: 1
};
it('should modify the default frame timeout', function(done) {
it.skip('should modify the default frame timeout', function(done) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this skipped?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because in one of the ci runs, it failed. Created an issue. It is very intermittent & hard to replicate.

#1084

@jeeyyy
Copy link
Contributor Author

jeeyyy commented Aug 21, 2018

const { cssom = undefined } = context || {};
const checkPass = true;
const checkFail = false;
const checkIncomplete = undefined;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This return value thing is inconsistent with how we've done things so far. I'm open to have a discussion about it, but I don't think we should be introducing inconsistent coding styles like this.

})
);
return;
}

// if any import rules exists, fetch via `href` which eventually constructs a sheet with results from resource
importRules.forEach(rule => {
getExternalStylesheet;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's going on here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch. Should be removed, doing so now.

WilcoFiers
WilcoFiers previously approved these changes Aug 21, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some nit-picky stuff. Looks good to go. Up to you @JKODU if you want to fix them up first.

@jeeyyy
Copy link
Contributor Author

jeeyyy commented Aug 21, 2018

@WilcoFiers - I updated the same PR, as one of the nitpick, although does not affect the code, would not have preferred for it to flow into develop.

You will have to approve again.

@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers merged commit 4ae4ea0 into develop Aug 21, 2018
@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers deleted the rule-orientation-lock branch August 21, 2018 22:04
@stephenmathieson
Copy link
Member

@WilcoFiers you forgot to do a security review

@jeeyyy
Copy link
Contributor Author

jeeyyy commented Aug 23, 2018

@WilcoFiers - Can't believe it.
@stephenmathieson - Reckon we need that lambda?

@stephenmathieson
Copy link
Member

Yeah, we do. A friend has been working on something that will take care of this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants