Render fields as markdown

[Tschuppi81]

Directory: Render markdown in accordion layout

TYPE: Feature
LINK: ogc-2131

[linear]

OGC-2131 Rendering Markdown aufklappbare Karten

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.26%. Comparing base (97478cf) to head (ac92189).
Report is 14 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/onegov/org/layout.py	91.81% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 97478cf...ac92189. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Daverball]

@Tschuppi81 Did you check whether the other view type uses markdown? It might use to_html_ul, which should be sufficient for this use-case (it'll also add the correct css class for bulleted lists). Full markdown support seems like overkill to me.

[Daverball]

@Tschuppi81 Did you check whether the other view type uses markdown? It might use to_html_ul, which should be sufficient for this use-case (it'll also add the correct css class for bulleted lists). Full markdown support seems like overkill to me.

Actually nevermind, this is default form display rendering. So it is probably a markdown field. I would suggest relying on the field display renderer for rendering values, rather than trying to roll your own custom display. Have a look at the display_fields macro. You will need some special handling for UploadField/UploadMultipleField but for the rest you should be able to rely on form.render_display(field).

Although you may actually just be able to use the display_fields macro directly and rely purely on CSS for any style changes between the two layouts.

[Tschuppi81]

Yes, I will try to reuse the display_fields macro

[Daverball]

LGTM.

I just have a small question regarding the CSS change.

[Daverball]

Why is there only a CSS change for Org, does Town6 not need one?

[Tschuppi81]

Fort town6 it was introduced with ogc-1634, ed93c7d

[Daverball]

But this change is about .field-display not .accordion-title or .accordion-content. If anything you'd be missing CSS rules for both Org and Town now, just different ones.

[Tschuppi81]

I now found a way to make it independent of .field-display

[Daverball]

My problem is not with the rules you added or what elements they address.

I'm asking why you have custom CSS for the header and content of the accordion in Town6 and not Org, and why you have custom styling for the display of the fields in Org but not Town6.

If you're satisfied with how it looks in both styles I'm satisfied too.

I was merely puzzled by the difference between Org and Town6, since you've decided to manually style completely different elements in both cases. So I was asking whether or not that was intentional or if you accidentally forgot to sync the rules between Org and Town6.