-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.3k
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.
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
disable save button if visualization is dirty #11576
Conversation
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
I'm going to try to write a small test for this. |
PR is now ready for review. |
hi @scampi, my apologies for the little delay on this one. I'll take a look later today. In the meantime, do you mind rebasing and resolve merge conflict when you get a chance? thx! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a very nice UX improvement. thx!
The merge conflict is pretty minor, some other methods were inserted at the same location in the UI-test helpers, so rebase should be pretty straightforward.
LGTM pending rebase.
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ export default function ({ getService, loadTestFile }) { | |||
}); | |||
}); | |||
|
|||
loadTestFile(require.resolve('./_editor')); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is why you're awesome @scampi. Community PRs rarely include UI-tests!!!
@ppisljar you want to take 2nd look? thx |
@thomasneirynck thanks for the kind words! I have rebased against master. I added a little 3rd commit so that the tests make more sense. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
(backport: manual merge edits in test file)
5.x backport: #11816 |
I'm going to revert this as it introduced two UX regressions (#12082). I missed those. I think this is a pretty good change still, but we'll need to look into two issues:
|
This reverts commit efc6218.
elastic#12152) This reverts commit efc6218.
elastic#12152) This reverts commit efc6218.
close #11575