utterances
utterances copied to clipboard
utterance
Reverse order of comments
Closes #182
Added options to reverse order of comments and put the input form above comments, instead of below. As most of the time I expect either both or none of them to be used, they are handled by a common checkbox in the config generator.
Overall it seems to work, but I have not tested it on cases with hidden pages (I have not seen any).
Example config (from the configuration-component):
<script src="https://utteranc.es/client.js"
repo="[ENTER REPO HERE]"
issue-term="pathname"
theme="github-light"
reverse-order="true"
input-position-top="true"
crossorigin="anonymous"
async>
</script>
@jdanyow I see you've closed #221 in favor of this PR, but do you need me to add something more here? Or is it OK to merge?
Unfortunately, I do not know anything other than what's in this PR Maybe @jdanyow does not see these @ mentions?
I've sent a review request.
Unfortunately the hosted utterances app (the bot user) is an essential part of this service, so a random fork will not work unless you self-host the server-side part.
I don’t think discussions are going to use reversed order either. What is the benefit of reversing comment order?
I don’t think discussions are going to use reversed order either.
Could you please elaborate? "Either", as in something else won't use it? :thinking:
The idea is to have an option of having
INPUT_BOX
NEW_COMMENT
OLD_COMMENT
instead of
OLD_COMMENT
NEW_COMMENT
INPUT_BOX
In my application that would provide a better layout and user experience. Judging by the number of comments above it's not a unique case
In my application that would provide a better layout and user experience. Judging by the number of comments above it's not a unique case
I agree. It makes a lot of sense to both sort comments by new and also have the input box sit at the top. This has been my biggest personal hesitation to using this widget.
@zsdycs good comments and improvements, thanks
Please feel free to branch off of this and open your own pull request. (or one starting from the current master branch?)
To be honest, after over a year of no response (and then a response I did not really understand, but one that sounded like the feature is not needed) I kind of lost interest.
@tpietruszka Thank you for your approval!
This feature is very good, I think many people expect to be able to use this feature.
The purpose of my proposed modification is to hope that developers who are interested in this feature will have more reference information.
So, unfortunately, I will not submit the changed code in this branch or from the master branch, because I think this is futile, unless @jdanyow agrees with this feature, at least he is not interested in it for now.
But we have to understand that "utterances" is currently a mature plug-in, and we must consider many aspects when introducing a feature.
The most important thing is that I use this code. After I modified it, I merged it into the Chinese version of "utterances"-"beaudar - 表达". Thank you for your contribution!
