fix(FAB): remove size detection logic in favor of label slotted content only #958
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
|
View Storybook Deployment |
samrichardsontylertech
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2025
MikeMatusz
approved these changes
Jul 8, 2025
|
🚀 PR was released in |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
Describe the new behavior?
This change removes legacy size detection logic for auto-detecting the "extended" state. This logic has been the cause of a few layout bugs and support questions regarding this component over the years, and only causes confusion. The answer has been to always use the
labelslot, and this is what our guidance shows as well.While the size-based extended functionality is unlikely to be used to be used currently, it technically could cause a small visual adjustments regarding the padding around the content internally...
IMO given that this is a legacy "feature" that is unlikely to be used nowadays, we should remove it to avoid confusion. Technically it could be seen as a breaking visual change, but guidance and documentation mention the correct way to use it so this would have been an undocumented/misused feature to begin with. Open to feedback.