Final QA + fixes #843
Final QA + fixes #843
Conversation
bryceerobertson
requested review from
melissasamworth,
mruwnik and
LeMurphant
package.json
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mruwnik can confirm but I believe you don't want to have the package.json included in your commit. I'm not sure how it gets updated (if ever) though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it depends. It's good to update things, as long as you check that nothing broke after the version bumps... In general it's usually better to split it into 2 PRs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
separating changes of all files that were need while updating package.json (into different PR or multiple commits in the same PR) are nicer for reviewers when other files needed to be updated, so see only changes due to lib version update in 1 place vs. changes independent from that in 2nd pace ... but it doesn't matter for final code, only whether it works => "nice to have" for future PRs, IMHO no need to change this PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok thanks, noted for the future. I'll just cross my fingers that it didn't break anything this time
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if it works locally, it shoud be fine 🤞 but just in case, I deployed your branch to https://stampy-ui2.aprillion.workers.dev/ if you want to double check 😅 (most often, library updates tend to be in the category "either all works or all broken" and the deploy looks good to me on homepage and a few random pages, so as I said, it should be fine 🍀)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not related to this PR in particular, but I'm surprised so much content was added into source code and not parsed from a google doc / coda ... does it mean the i18n efforts were de-prioritized?
| <div className="flexbox padding-bottom-56"> | ||
| <h2 className="teal-500 padding-bottom-4 col-8" id="new-to-aisafety"> | ||
| If you're somewhat new to AI safety, we recommend an introductory overview | ||
| If you{'\u2019'}re somewhat new to AI safety, we recommend an introductory overview |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we use the right single quotation mark consistently for content from gdocs as well as from source code JSX for all the contractions, please? I personally prefer '->' for source-code readability, but if ’ comes from gdocs, then ’=={'\u2019'}->’ is probably better indeed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@LeMurphant would know more but from a quick look at the site it appears there isn't too much consistency:
I personally think the ’ looks prettier than the ', and FWIW that what's the Figma has. I would advocate making that consistent across the site (only) if it's relatively easy
I did a lot of troubleshooting in various places so chances are there's some unnecessary/ugly code in the mix