Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins'
  1. Jenkins
  2. JENKINS-30846

Long text in Build Pipeline's "Project headers" is obscured

    • Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Icon: Minor Minor
    • build-pipeline-plugin
    • Jenkins 1.609.1, Build Pipeline Plugin 1.4.8

      When Show pipeline project headers and Show pipeline parameters in project headers are selected, if the parameter values are too long they are obscured by the next header box (see attached screenshot)

          [JENKINS-30846] Long text in Build Pipeline's "Project headers" is obscured

          Manuel Recena Soto added a comment - - edited

          dserodio, Could you attach a screenshot including the window? The browser size (or screen resolution) would be helpful.

          What is your proposal to improve this?

          The space is limited. If we use fixed box width, we will need a horizontal scroll.

          Manuel Recena Soto added a comment - - edited dserodio , Could you attach a screenshot including the window? The browser size (or screen resolution) would be helpful. What is your proposal to improve this? The space is limited. If we use fixed box width, we will need a horizontal scroll.

          milki mlk added a comment -

          If the pipeline is horrendously long, you must allow for horizontal scrolling. There's no reason to limit the view to the browser width if the pipeline itself is wider than the browser. I have a pipeline that is 20+ cards long, and with width: 100%, the cards were shrunk to < 10px. If the pipeline is too short, the cards shouldn't be expanding to fill the width.

          A fixed width build card at least allows a reasonable minimal-width for the pipeline, even if it looks bad because it overflows the parent container. The parent container (form#pipeline I believe) should expand to the width of its contents too (or scroll).

          milki mlk added a comment - If the pipeline is horrendously long, you must allow for horizontal scrolling. There's no reason to limit the view to the browser width if the pipeline itself is wider than the browser. I have a pipeline that is 20+ cards long, and with width: 100% , the cards were shrunk to < 10px . If the pipeline is too short, the cards shouldn't be expanding to fill the width. A fixed width build card at least allows a reasonable minimal-width for the pipeline, even if it looks bad because it overflows the parent container. The parent container ( form#pipeline I believe) should expand to the width of its contents too (or scroll).

          milki, It seems that a fixed box width is the most popular option. This will never avoid that texts to be clipped.

          I'll work in this direction.

          Manuel Recena Soto added a comment - milki , It seems that a fixed box width is the most popular option. This will never avoid that texts to be clipped. I'll work in this direction.

          Daniel Serodio added a comment - - edited

          recena This is a maximized browser window on a MacBook Pro Retina 13", i.e. 2560 x 1600 resolution

          As I commented on https://github.com/jenkinsci/build-pipeline-plugin/pull/81#issuecomment-139060873, if the pipeline is long the horizontal scroll is better. How was "a fixed box width is the most popular option" determined? To me it seems that on the linked PR the majority opposed this change

          Daniel Serodio added a comment - - edited recena This is a maximized browser window on a MacBook Pro Retina 13", i.e. 2560 x 1600 resolution As I commented on https://github.com/jenkinsci/build-pipeline-plugin/pull/81#issuecomment-139060873 , if the pipeline is long the horizontal scroll is better. How was "a fixed box width is the most popular option" determined? To me it seems that on the linked PR the majority opposed this change

          milki mlk added a comment -

          recena, cool. I realize also that my comment was better suited for JENKINS-29477. /me will be watching. In the meantime, custom css url works wonders.

          milki mlk added a comment - recena , cool. I realize also that my comment was better suited for JENKINS-29477 . /me will be watching. In the meantime, custom css url works wonders.

          Manuel Recena Soto added a comment - - edited

          dserodio Waiting for your proposal... Fixed or Liquid? The current implementation is based on a liquid layout.

          Manuel Recena Soto added a comment - - edited dserodio Waiting for your proposal... Fixed or Liquid? The current implementation is based on a liquid layout.

          milki mlk added a comment -

          recena, would it be difficult to implement a configurable fixed layout and a liquid layout and let the user choose in the view configuration?

          milki mlk added a comment - recena , would it be difficult to implement a configurable fixed layout and a liquid layout and let the user choose in the view configuration?

          milki this would be back to the era where we had two versions: desktop website and mobile website

          Anyway, I'll try to find a solution.

          Manuel Recena Soto added a comment - milki this would be back to the era where we had two versions: desktop website and mobile website Anyway, I'll try to find a solution.

          Fixed layout is the only option that works for large pipelines

          Daniel Serodio added a comment - Fixed layout is the only option that works for large pipelines

          Manuel Recena Soto added a comment - - edited

          dserodio, Don't confuse fixed width box with fixed layout.

          Manuel Recena Soto added a comment - - edited dserodio , Don't confuse fixed width box with fixed layout.

            recena Manuel Recena Soto
            dserodio Daniel Serodio
            Votes:
            1 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated: