Proper way to change compiled.css / Hidden CSSes in IPC2.3
#1
Posted 04 April 2012 - 03:56 AM
I couldn't find a place in the ACP where this file can be searched (which is a pain) or where other files included in block can be searched.
This is imho something to fix in future revisions of IPC, because it creates to "kind" of css, the ones you can edit in the ACP "look and feel" and the ones you just can't.
It doesn't sound right or usable to me.
This beeing said.
What is the proprer, intended way of making a change to compiled.css ?
By editing the file itself ?
Thru ACP - if so, where ?
What about revisioning ? Upgrading to 2.3.1 just overwrites compiled.css, that's not very user friendly.
For some changes, I could deal with creating conflicting rules in ipb_styles.css with the !important flag, but hell, that's an ugly trick.
I'd appreciate the expert's input on this,
#2
Posted 04 April 2012 - 03:59 AM
.... you are NOT supposed to edit that file... ever.... that breaks being able to customize it by skin.... and the compiled block template css...In ICP2.3 I had to make changes to compiled.css
I couldn't find a place in the ACP where this file can be searched (which is a pain) or where other files included in block can be searched.
This is imho something to fix in future revisions of IPC, because it creates to "kind" of css, the ones you can edit in the ACP "look and feel" and the one you just can't.
It doesn't sound right or usable to me.
This beeing said.
What is the proprer, intended way of making a change to compiled.css ?
By editing the file itself ?
Thru ACP - if so, where ?
What about revisioning ? Upgrading to 2.3.1 just overwrites compiled.css, that's not very user friendly.
For some changes, I could deal with creating conflicting rules in ipb_styles.css with the !important flag, but hell, that's an ugly trick.
I'd appreciate the expert's input on this,
ipcontent.css... note the last bit of that skin css file... you ARE supposed to !important over it... the base styles there(in compiled.css) are ones of layout in the case of block template css, and external use primarily.
Basically, editing that file serves 0 purpose... and is a core file edit for literally destroyed minor gains on any upgrade.
You can customize a block template's css/js from its directory easily.... .but... if you do that to a developers stock Block Template css/js... expect that to get nuked on the author updating their work... not truly seeing a need for an interface.... but meh, that's a different subject.
#3
Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:04 AM
I'll look into this
Thanks for confirming there is no proper way to edit that file... There is no DOC for all of that so as a customer, we're a bit on our own
You have to agree with me that proposing to customers, that are probably already confused by blocks' separate CSSes (the "unfindable in ACP CSSes", to !important conflicting CSS rules to overcome compiled.css is really complicated
#4
Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:18 AM
I can.. but in the same token... those same customers want that tidy out-of-the-box functionality... sans block templates(WITH their separate css/js)... pre-made solutions like this become less usable/approachable, as in wrapper-less usages the costumer would have to manually include the css/js files.Well there was some stuff I couldn't do by !important (I can find it for reference if that's of any use) - I think it's related to the (weird btw) min-width/max-width stuff some fields have, !important did not want to overwrite them...
I'll look into this
Thanks for confirming there is no proper way to edit that file... There is no DOC for all of that so as a customer, we're a bit on our own
You have to agree with me that proposing to customers, that are probably already confused by blocks' separate CSSes (the "unfindable in ACP CSSes", to !important conflicting CSS rules to overcome compiled.css is really complicated
#5
Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:25 AM
But I really don't understand why IPC blocks simply don't "inject" their CSS and HTML code in the same area where the IPBoard CSS and HTML are stored...
WHy on earth is there this complied.css/compiled.js "monster" (which was not served from CDN, a bug I filed and that was fixed, thanks bfarber) is beyond my comprehension...
Let's not even talk about IMAGES referenced by these "extra" CSS files...
It sounds so much easier to put the CSS and HTML templates where they belong, in look and feel...
But again, there are probably technical reasons for not doing so. It just sounds weird.
#6
Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:32 AM
They do not belong in Look and Feel.I'm not in the inner workings of IPB just yet (altough I'm a quick learner, I finally got used to my user table beeing called "members" and my threads table beeing called "topics"
)
But I really don't understand why IPC blocks simply don't "inject" their CSS and HTML code in the same area where the IPBoard CSS and HTML are stored...
WHy on earth is there this complied.css/compiled.js "monster" (which was not served from CDN, a bug I filed and that was fixed, thanks bfarber) is beyong my comprehension...
Let's not even talk about IMAGES referenced by these "extra" CSS files...
It sounds so much easier to put the CSS and HTML templates where they belong, in look and feel...
But again, there are probably technical reasons for not doing so. It just sounds weird.
I see value in view/edit/revise block template css/js, plenty.... I could use that.
IPC Templates and assets do not belong in the Look & Feel area of the ACP.... for a reason.
they are not tied to skins.
they are not changeable by skin.
They do not require adding a template to the skin.
There are Content Templates in your skin... but frankly, these are far less easily customizable(forms) simply Because they ARE in the skin system.. and you may not select a different one per database.
I suspect you will be seeing more of Content moved out of Look & Feel due to customers needs in Flexibility from Content, not moved in.
Not discounting the bug mentioned btw.
but... 1 large compressed cached file..... is better than 30/40 block js files separate for the specific page.... right? same for css.... unless I'm missing a rather large mark.
#7
Posted 04 April 2012 - 09:11 AM
- Marcher Technologies and Weppa333 like this
Developer / Senior Support
If it sounds like fun, it's not allowed on the bus!

Invision Power Services, Inc.
#8
Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:01 AM
#9
Posted 05 April 2012 - 03:28 AM
#10
Posted 05 April 2012 - 04:01 AM
#11
Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:50 AM
Developer / Senior Support
If it sounds like fun, it's not allowed on the bus!

Invision Power Services, Inc.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users













