I'm using Twitter Bootstrap for presentation. The design calls for labels and input fields to be on the same line for desktop and stacked for mobile. To achieve this I would like to use TB's grid system but I can't find a way to do this. Looking through the documentation I can see how to apply a class to the wrapper div for a label/input pair but not to the label and input fields individually.
http://jsbin.com/voreyev/edit?html,js,output
You could always use the standard bootstrap grid system to achieve this. E.g.
<label class="col-sm-12 col-md-4">name</label>
<input type="text" class="col-sm-12 col-md-8" />
This will use the media queries built into bootstrap to force the label onto its own line on small screens and inline on larger screens.
Related
Let's suppose I have a frontend application, let's just use Vue as an example, that has a Text component which takes in a prop text which it renders out on route /my-page:
<template>
<div>{{ props.text }}</div>
</template>
Now I would like to create a corresponding backend that lets me change this text. What I thought would be cool, is if I was to go to a certain route, e.g. /backend/my-page that looked exactly like /my-page in the frontend (i.e. it pulls in my-page as a component), but allowed configurability of the text and whatever.
What I thought about doing was to extend my text component and basically check whether I am in the backend (by looking at the route) and then render out a CK5Editor to be able to change the text. This text would be sent to the database, then in turn be rendered out in the frontend:
<template>
<editor v-if="route.startsWith('/backend')" />
<div v-else>{{ props.text }}</div>
</template>
While I suppose this approach would work, I am wondering whether this would be the right way to do it, or whether instead to separate these two components into one and if so how to do that.
I'm looking to create a reusable, modularized component in Umbraco 9. I've never worked with any Umbraco before. The example I'll use is a text widget/component that has an image on the left and text on the right, with the ability to set whether you want to swap this to be image right, text left.
I come from the Sitecore world where creating a component like this would mean creating a definition with the fields in the back office, creating an MVC controller and an action, and pointing that back office definition at the controller/action combo. Then, anywhere I've deemed a component hot spot, I can click an "add component" and it'd display the available components I've created (Text + Image Block, in our example).
Our team has been researching how to do something like this in Umbraco. We've been using element types. I've got it working where I can create a list of element types, but we couldn't figure out how to add a controller/action/view to this process to really control what gets displayed.
We've looked into the Grid Type Editor. That requires some Angular work that wasn't exactly playing nice, for some reason it was seeing our image fields as null even though they had an image.
We also tried messing with the Block List editor, and are currently investigating macros.
We've been spinning our wheels and I'm hoping to get some assistance on how to do something like this in Umbraco. Perhaps I'm searching/using the wrong terminology?
Most of our components are super simple, and rather than create a reusable component, we can just use the grid editor. In our example above, we could create a 50/50 grid row and put an image in the left column and the text in the right. This would work, but we'd like to have a little more of a reusable package. Furthermore, a few of the components will require some controller functionality to be able to hit an API and massage some data before passing it to the presentation layer.
We will keep investigating, but ultimately I'm hoping someone can clear up if we're going down the wrong path, or just missing some crucial point here.
Sure! Two ways come to mind for me. One would be make a simple doctype like the screenshot below and let layout decide how to stack them
This sample uses bootstrap which of course you don't have to use, and in my case I have them in a nested content element so I basically just loop through them and alternate putting flex-row-reverse on the row.
#{
var i = 0
foreach(var contentBlock in Model.ContentBlocks)
{
<div class="d-flex flex-wrap align-items-center #(i %2 != 0 ? "flex-row-reverse" : null)">
<div class="block-left col-sm-7">
<h5>#contentBlock.SectionHeading</h5>
#Html.Raw(contentBlock.SectionDescription.ToString())
</div>
#if(contentBlock.HasValue("sectionImage") && contentBlock.SectionImage != null)
{
<div class="block1-right col-sm-5 ml-auto">
<figure class="hover">
<img id="#contentBlock.SectionImage.Name.Trim().Replace(" ", "-")" src="#contentBlock.SectionImage.Url">
</figure>
</div>
}
</div>
i++;
}
}
The other way (as you asked for) is to give the content editor the choice with a toggle, add a toggle to the doctype
and instead of this line
<div class="d-flex flex-wrap align-items-center #(i %2 != 0 ? "flex-row-reverse" : null)">
you could use this line
<div class="d-flex flex-wrap align-items-center #(contentBlock.SectionAlignment == true ? "flex-row-reverse":null)">
Or even something like this where you just assign your own class and write the CSS separately
<div class="d-flex flex-wrap align-items-center #(contentBlock.SectionAlignment == true ? "block-right":"block-left")">
Hope that helps get you going in the right direction. I'm sure you'll have to adapt this for your situation and this code is not tested.
Happy to help if you have any issues.
I am working in a personal project in which I am using Vue+Vuetify. In one view I'm going to have an image logo and, bellow it, a Drag&Drop area. For this I started testing the grid system (Vuetify 2.X), which is giving me a bit of a headache.
For testing I used this code that is referenced in the Vuetify's documentation website about the Grid system:
<template>
<v-container class="grey lighten-5">
<v-row v-for="n in 2" :key="n" :class="n === 1 ? 'mb-6' : ''" no-gutters>
<v-col v-for="k in n + 1" :key="k">
<v-card class="pa-2" outlined tile> {{ k }} of {{ n + 1 }} </v-card>
</v-col>
</v-row>
</v-container>
</template>
The result of this code should look like this:
From the documentation and this example, I understand that the v-container acts as a package that holds the v-rows, which are the ones that have the v-cols that are the ones with the information to display. The v-container will arrange the v-rows vertically, while the v-rows will do it horizontally to the v-cols. In summary: the v-container is the foundation for a matrix-like structure, in which the combination of v-rows with v-cols are the tiles of the matrix.
With this all said, using the same code in my view I get this:
Here the v-container seems to be arrnaging the v-rows horizontally instead, and not even centered.
Is this normal? Did I miss an option or maybe the problem is comming from outside the view?
Thank you for your time.
My goal is to create an input like the one described as being 'outline variant' in these Material docs.
How do I configure and/or what CSS should I add to materialize CSS forms to use the 'outline' variant?
There appears to be a few issues/requests for this outline variant, but the Materialize folks have indicated that it wasn't part of the spec at the time and have subsequently closed the issues.
I dug through some of the Material samples versus styling on the Materialize framework and noticed that they are handling things slightly different as far as padding, borders/shadows etc.
Achieving this outline variant as the default treatment is going to require some slightly destructive style updates that should probably be handled via the preprocessed files, but here is an example of some quick and dirty overrides
Note the addon class "input-outlined" in the markup:
<div class="col input-field input-outlined s6">
<input placeholder="Placeholder" id="first_name" type="text" class="validate">
<label for="first_name">First Name</label>
</div>
As far as I can tell, they're related but not the same project and do not use the same CSS files. I was using a CDN link for Materialize for a little while and none of the Material.io classes were taking effect.
Then I switched over to using the suggested Material.io CDN links, found here: https://material.io/develop/web/docs/getting-started/
Once I did that, I could use the HTML markup and class names that became visible on the page you provided after I clicked the "Web" tab.
It works. Here is a Codepen showing both styles of text inputs in action (this Codepen is using the Material.io CDN links in the settings).
The main difference between filled and outlined is that filled looks to be the default. I'm inferring that the Material.io design system has you repeat the classname and append a modifier if you wish to deviate from the default.
For instance, in the linked codepen, notice that the filled (default) text field is inside <div class="mdc-text-field"> while the outlined text field is inside <div class="mdc-text-field mdc-text-field--outlined"></div>.
I have been tasked with converting a design heavy, fairly advanced HTML template for a site into an Orchard theme and I am struggling with the best way to accomplish certain things. The theme is built on bootstrap and is a modern responsive HTML template like you might find on ThemeForest or something. The site will have a number of content types (staff members, portfolio items, partners, etc.) and will need a number of templates. The content types will have a large number of fields (upwards of a dozen) inside of custom content parts.
Based on what I have read the proper way to do theming in Orchard is using placement.info in combination with alternates, wrappers, etc. This gracefully handles if parts or properties are added/removed. However, this technique is quickly becoming overwhelming, since I have to declare the name and order of every field/part in the placement.info for every content type, and every display type of that content type. Each field of each content type then needs to be wrapped in very specific html. This creates an issue because a single page can be split out into potentially a couple dozen views, with HTML tags opening in one view and closing in another.
The best work around for this I have found is to basically ignore the placement.info file and build templates just by traversing the object model. So basically, for a portfolio page, I would copy in the template HTML I have and then replace the text values with values from the model. This might look something like:
<li class="#Display(Model.ContentItem.PortfolioPart.PortfolioCore.Value.ToLower())">
<a href="#Url.ItemDisplayUrl(contentItem)" >
#foreach (var media in Model.ContentItem.PortfolioPart.PortfolioImage.MediaParts)
{
<img src="#Display(media.MediaUrl)" />
}
<span class="type">#Display(Model.ContentItem.PortfolioPart.PortfolioCoreArea.Value)</span>
<span class="portfolio-item-content">
<span class="header">#Display(Model.ContentItem.TitlePart.Title)</span>
<span class="body">
<p>
#Display(Model.ContentItem.PortfolioPart.PortfolioTagline.Value)
</p>
</span>
</span>
</a>
</li>
The benefit with this method is that I can apply all of the values in a couple of views and it's more readable. Obviously the problem with this is that if any properties or parts are removed, the template breaks.
Is there a way in Orchard to have the best of both worlds? I can't have a wrapper or template for every field - this would end up potentially hundreds of fields by the end. I also might need to display content types in multiple places with different views - each field would then require a whole new set of wrappers or alternates for every projection.
Please let me know if I'm missing anything or if there is a better way to do this besides manually traversing to the properties I need. I need a way to be able to easily plug in properties into very specific html.
My final thought was to use very specific templates for custom content types using the object model but still provide good general templates/placement.info file so that general Orchard content is flexible but the custom content types have to stay how they are.
Side thought - I guess another option would be to wrap any code that accesses a property directly in a try catch block or some kind of error handler helper, but that doesn't seem like a "best practice".
I think the techniques in this article are what you're looking for: http://weblogs.asp.net/bleroy/archive/2013/02/13/easy-content-templates-for-orchard-take-2.aspx