Fixes misreported HTML errors when input labels are changed by CSS #712
Conversation
This file contains 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
This fixes elixir-wallaby#236 by using the validate_html logic, that was previously used exclusively by buttons, for both checkboxes and radio buttons. This changes the error message Wallaby reports from complaining about a missing label to one that simply states the label does not exist. This also extends the HTML validation for buttons so that helpful hints can still be provided, and adds a new error message for when the element isn't found but the CSS query finds the label.
|
I'll be able to review this soon, thanks for the PR! |
|
Will take a closer look at this soon, thank you for the patience! |
Thanks @mhanberg. Don't worry about it if you're busy though - there's no rush 🙂 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi, first of all, thanks so much for Wallaby - it's so helpful and nice to use!
I've tried to address issue #236 by using the first approach you suggested
since the other two approaches seemed a bit too involved for my first contribution. If your thinking has evolved since creating the issue and you'd rather take another approach, feel free to let me know; I'm happy to just close this PR.
Thanks!