Rework the test problem header. - #3204
Open
drgrice1 wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
somiaj
reviewed
Sep 8, 2026
somiaj
reviewed
Sep 8, 2026
drgrice1
force-pushed
the
test-problem-header-rework
branch
3 times, most recently
from
September 8, 2026 23:48
11f8833 to
2eaceb7
Compare
somiaj
reviewed
Sep 9, 2026
drgrice1
force-pushed
the
test-problem-header-rework
branch
from
September 9, 2026 00:31
2eaceb7 to
dc724a9
Compare
somiaj
approved these changes
Sep 9, 2026
Currently the message that reports if answers are recorded or not is the first thing in a problem in a test, and that also has the `id` of the problem. That `id` element is what is used as the anchor when a problem jump link is used or if entering the test directly to a problem from a link else where. Furthermore, in most of those cases when those fragment URLs are used, that recorded answer div is empty. This results in odd behavior such as that empty div being outlined. So move that div down after the actual problem header and wrap the problem header (and sub header) in a div that now contains the `id` of the problem. This is much more intuitive when one of these fragment URLs is used. Note that this needs openwebwork#3203 to work better, and will conflict with openwebwork#3202 (but the changes in openwebwork#3202 that this conflicts with should be removed with this change).
drgrice1
force-pushed
the
test-problem-header-rework
branch
from
September 9, 2026 18:10
dc724a9 to
161b230
Compare
Contributor
|
I did notice that when this is combined with #3202 (or other ways to link to directly to a problem header), the "Problem X" header gets an outline around it when linking directly to the problem from a different page. Is this behavior we want? |
Member
Author
|
Yeah, you could add back the outline none css if you want. That would fix the issue. |
Contributor
|
Yea, I was just curious what behavior we would prefer. I would suggest adding it to this PR, since this is the header rework. To me I don't like it, but it is less of an issue for me since it isn't an empty div. So I could go either way. |
Member
Author
|
I added |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently the message that reports if answers are recorded or not is the first thing in a problem in a test, and that also has the
idof the problem. Thatidelement is what is used as the anchor when a problem jump link is used or if entering the test directly to a problem from a link else where. Furthermore, in most of those cases when those fragment URLs are used, that recorded answer div is empty. This results in odd behavior such as that empty div being outlined.So move that div down after the actual problem header and wrap the problem header (and sub header) in a div that now contains the
idof the problem. This is much more intuitive when one of these fragment URLs is used.Note that this needs #3203 to work better, and will conflict with #3202 (but the changes in #3202 that this conflicts with should probably be removed with this change).