Can't Spoiler Lightboxed images
-
Continuing the discussion from Vote of No Confidence:
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
Edit: apparently, spoilers no longer work on light box images.
Filed Under: Days Since Last Discobug: -1As shown in the quote
aboveIn the edit at the bottom because discorsistency, lightboxed images override spoiler tags unless they are in a quote. FUCK! The image in the quote above is entered as follows:[spoiler]<img src="/uploads/default/original/3X/2/f/2f5d91bf76127a0369a8bd14ab05f5e6f0016bf1.png" width="413" height="500"> [/spoiler]
Trying with the tags on separate lines produces the following results:
[spoiler] <img src="/uploads/default/original/3X/2/f/2f5d91bf76127a0369a8bd14ab05f5e6f0016bf1.png" width="413" height="500"> [/spoiler]
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]Edit:
Reproducing the initial fail condition because discoursistency:[spoiler] [/spoiler]
-
Ok, to sum up:
Spoilering doesn't work on a lightbox image unless it is also wrapped in a quote. Because Discourse wants to fuck you over, that's why!
-
I liked this but... why are we even "reporting" bugs any more?
Unless it's for our internal reference of failure. In which case, carry on.
-
Unless it's for our internal reference of failure. In which case, carry on.
This.
Also, there's been talk about removing the restrictions from the bugs category, which would make this area discoverable to the googlebots.
-
Funny enough, this post is the first I've seen in a long time where spoilering actually seems to work!
-
Also, there's been talk about removing the restrictions from the bugs category
Which restrictions, now?
-
The ones that were removed at some point this morning. By you. :P
-
No, I didn't do anything like that. But interestingly, those things don't show up in the admin logs apparently. But...
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/2-n-queries-for-those-interested/3496/12?u=boomzilla
-
I liked this but... why are we even "reporting" bugs any more?
Unless it's for our internal reference of failure. In which case, carry on.
It's for our general entertainment, so we can keep reminding ourselves of the shitpile we left behind.
Do we want to keep an open discourse bugs category after we move?
-
Do we want to keep an open discourse bugs category after we move?
Why not? We could just migrate this category as "Discourse Bugs" and leave it open to posterity.
-
We could just migrate this category as "Discourse Bugs" and leave it open to posterity.
Especially if it's accessible to googlebots. I was thinking it should be renamed from "Bugs" to "Discourse Bugs" even now. Anything to help the Googlez publicize the bugs moar.
-
Yeah, but then we'd have to categorize bugs in our customizations as something else, and it's starting to sound like work at that point.
-
Yeah, but then we'd have to categorize bugs in our customizations as something else, and it's starting to sound like work at that point.
If someone actually gets here from Google indexing, they can sort it out. If we're going to rename this category "Discourse Bugs", might as well do it sooner than later.
-
bugs in our customizations
1 out of the 857395673957394839 bugs we've found. I'm not going to worry about somebody being confused by that.
-
Except that, AS IT'S LOADING, it's not spoilered:
Of course, after you've seen the full image, it gets spoilered.
Very Discourse-like.
-
Of course, after you've seen the full image, it gets spoilered.
If someone posts images that need spoilers they should be banned. Official Discourse policy
-
If someone posts images that need spoilers they should be banned. Official Discourse policy
TDWTF — proudly Doing It Wrong™.
-
Except that, AS IT'S LOADING, it's not spoilered:
Because adding CSS to stuff without jQuery is hard, mmmk?
-
adding CSS to stuff without jQuery is hard
And for the discodevs, it's hard even with jQuery.