Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add a style inversion script and bundle css in single file on build #292

Open
EresDev opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Comments

@EresDev
Copy link
Contributor

EresDev commented Sep 6, 2024

reference: #277 (comment)

We want to write css that is used for the dark theme by default. And the styling for the light theme should be generated automatically by a script on build. There is a script that does similar work in work.ubq.fi repository. Don't hesitate to use it if it is helpful.

With this script, you will also have to refactor the existing CSS.

Currently, multiple CSS files exist for different purposes, e.g., light mode, gift card, rewards. It will be a good idea to bundle the CSS in a single CSS file on build so that the web page loads only one CSS file.

@Keyrxng
Copy link
Member

Keyrxng commented Sep 7, 2024

I'm wondering how essential this actually is if we are moving to a framework soon, where this is easily handled with simple plugins, packages or theme providers?

@0x4007
Copy link
Member

0x4007 commented Sep 7, 2024

Should be a brand new repo. Keep this one no framework.

@EresDev
Copy link
Contributor Author

EresDev commented Sep 9, 2024

I'm wondering how essential this actually is if we are moving to a framework soon.

I think even if we move to a new framework or not, the new script we are planning to introduce here, may end up adding more issues than it solves. But that could be my lack of experience with such CSS automation. I would like to keep the CSS the way it is. It is not too complex to automate.

Should be a brand new repo. Keep this one no framework.

I believe you are referring to above comment by Keyrxng. It is not a part of change in the specification of this issue?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants