Delete the mobile fence rule that never applied - #644
Merged
Conversation
.blog pre code { font-size: 14.5px } sat inside a max-width:768px block, but
the global rule at style.css:539 sorts later and media queries add no
specificity - mobile has always rendered 15.5px. 2604 chose 14.5px to reduce
horizontal-scroll feel; re-measured at 390x844, fences wrap and scroll is
contained, so the concern does not reproduce. Ratified, not restored, and the
supersession is recorded where the decision was made.
Gate: blog/index fails on origin/master BEFORE this change - control run with
the change reverted gives the same difference level 0.0015653935 twice. The
diff is the featured-post title and thumbnail, which the .blog-post /
.post-feature masks do not cover, so the test breaks on content churn. Not
caused by this commit; not papered over by re-recording.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016PUkwFTsiv7EB2DYKogbpg
Contributor
|
Important
This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars. ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
#642 and #643 are in. The typography audit is closed: the surface measures good and 2604 built it, so the only live finding was the dek reading smaller than the body it introduces - not actioned, because the real ask turned out to be content formatting rather than CSS. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016PUkwFTsiv7EB2DYKogbpg
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
.blog pre code { font-size: 14.5px }sits inside@media (max-width: 768px)atstyle.css:440, but the global.blog pre code { font-size: 15.5px }at:539sorts later — and media queries add no specificity, so the global rule wins even on mobile. Mobile has always rendered 15.5px.2604 chose 14.5px deliberately (
findings-mobile-ux.md:62-64) to reduce horizontal-scroll feel, and a later edit silently outvoted it by source order. So this is a decided behaviour that regressed without anyone choosing it.Ratified, not restored. Re-measured at 390x844: fences wrap (
pre-wrap), scroll is contained inside the block,bodyOverflowXfalse. The horizontal-scroll concern the rule addressed does not reproduce at 15.5px. The supersession is recorded where the decision was made, so the next reader finds the reasoning rather than a mystery.The padding half of that block was always live and is untouched.
Evidence
desktop_site_test39 runs, 0 failures.mobile_site_test31 runs, 0 failures. No baseline changes.max-width: 768pxblock.Note on the blog/index gate
This branch was blocked for a while by
blog/indexfailing at 0.16% on master. That was not this change: a control run with the CSS edit reverted reproduced the identical difference level twice. It cleared once #642 merged, because master's blog index had drifted from a baseline last recorded when "RubyLLM in Rails" (Aug 20) was the featured post.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_016PUkwFTsiv7EB2DYKogbpg