Limit selectors in .card-group to immediate children to fix border-radius bug
#41298
Conversation
|
What does this fix, is there a demo of a bug or an associated issue? |
|
Here's a demo: https://jsfiddle.net/1r7mjdzb/1/ If you look at the "Nested Card 1" header, the upper-right border is not rounded as expected. Similarly, if you look at the "Nested Card 2" header, the upper-left border is not rounded as expected. It's the same deal for the respective footers but the lower-right and lower-left borders respectively. |
|
Thanks! Yeah I don't think I anticipated folks nesting cards like this, but I should always expect the unexpected with Bootstrap at this point lol. That makes sense and hopefully won't be a huge issue for others.\ /cc @julien-deramond for thoughts |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/cc @julien-deramond for thoughts
I've experimented with various card combinations from our documentation, mirroring the approach used in the JSFiddle, and haven't encountered any similar problems nor observed any regressions.
I have no idea if this would be considered a breaking change or not. Personally I can't imagine someone relying on the previous greedy selector behavior, but anything is possible I suppose.
It's always tricky to determine what constitutes a breaking change. We're trying to assess how many users might be affected to decide whether it should be included as a patch, minor, or major release. In this case, as you mentioned, I can't imagine anyone relying on the previous selector behavior. Therefore, I'd vote for a simple patch that could be incorporated into v5.3.6.
.card-group to immediate children to fix border-radius bug
Description
This fixes an issue where borders are not rounded for cards nested within a card in a card group.
Motivation & Context
This fixes an issue where borders are not rounded for cards nested within a card in a card group.
Type of changes
Checklist
npm run lint)Live previews
Related issues
I have no idea if this would be considered a breaking change or not. Personally I can't imagine someone relying on the previous greedy selector behavior, but anything is possible I suppose.