Clarity of workarounds

[onyekaa]

trafficstars

This is a two-pronged thing:

1. It would be nice (but not necessary) if there was some way to tell without clicking through, if a feature had a workaround.
2. More importantly, I think the existing workarounds need some sort of explanation. I noticed they just have codepens, but in a couple of the cases I didn't understand what was being done or why.

[ireade]

Thanks for the feedback @onyekaa . I will work on them.

[isocroft]

@onyekaa For your second observation, I do believe that the codepens do have comments. Like mine has a couple of comments (on the pen) for each of the 3 workarounds i added. If a workaround (pen) doesn't have clear comments (in the source code) then the author should endeavor to put them. It's the least an author can do to carry everyone along

For your first observation, I would suggest that @ireade makes a simple markdown file called COMPLETED_WORKAROUNDS.md or something and update this md file using a simple pre-commit GitHook written in Bash, PHP or Python to automatically update the contents of this markdown file (based on the list of the names of all commited files in a given snapshot grepped for the workaround folder path) and track (git) it. Then, make the GitHook file(s) available for everyone to download a put into their local .git/hooks repo folder (before making a PR) after a fork and clone of this repo.

Later, when i'm less busy i might make one git hook script available.