Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Scrolling based on reading #90

Open
danimesq opened this issue Jul 27, 2017 · 7 comments
Open

Scrolling based on reading #90

danimesq opened this issue Jul 27, 2017 · 7 comments
Labels
enhancement TW Beta
Milestone
ThunderWave Beta

Comments

@danimesq
Copy link
Contributor

Hey, the scroll is going to top of our message when I reload it. It needs to detect that I already readed the messages, and scroll to the unread part.
@danimesq
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reference: #84, #85.

@AnthyG
Copy link
Owner

AnthyG commented Jul 27, 2017

Isn't this only the case for private messaging?

@danimesq
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think yes.

@AnthyG
Copy link
Owner

AnthyG commented Jul 27, 2017 •
edited
Loading

It's probably because I didn't yet enable the function to scroll down again, for the private chat..

AnthyG added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 17, 2017
@AnthyG
Added support for piecemaps; Fixed lots of private-chat bugs
4c14024 
Fixed #90
@AnthyG
Copy link
Owner

AnthyG commented Nov 17, 2017

Fixed with commit 4c14024

@AnthyG AnthyG closed this as completed Nov 17, 2017
@danimesq
Copy link
Contributor Author

@AnthyG
What are the next steps?

@AnthyG
Copy link
Owner

AnthyG commented Nov 23, 2017

Oh, I just saw that you actually meant that the scroll should be based on how much you self read.

@AnthyG AnthyG reopened this Nov 23, 2017
@AnthyG AnthyG added this to the ThunderWave Beta milestone Jul 28, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement TW Beta
Projects
None yet
Milestone
ThunderWave Beta
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@danimesq @AnthyG