A new form of Checkbox will be arriving in Textual soon, working in
conjunction with a RadioButton. What was called Checkbox is perhaps a wee
bit heavyweight in terms of visual design, but is a style of widget that
should remain.
With this in mind we're renaming the current Checkbox to Switch. In all
other respects its workings remains the same, only the name has changed.
Things for people to watch out for:
- Imports will need to be updated.
- Queries will need to be updated; special attention will need to be paid to
any queries that are string-based.
- CSS will need to be changed if any Checkbox styling is happening, or if
any Checkbox component styles are being used.
See #1725 as the initial motivation and #1746 as the issue for this
particular change.
This one's a little vague right now, and I'm not sure how best to test this.
Looking at the mkdocs documentation it isn't clear to me that you *can*
provide the config file to the gh-build command, but there's example command
lines in the docs showing that you can.
Need to see if there's a safe way to test this out -- the last thing I want
to do is nuke our website.
The idea here is that there is a single file for the nav for all the docs,
both online and offline. The nav will be the full online nav in all its blog
glory, and then the build system will strip out the nav items relating to
the blog when building the offline version.
There's a wrinkle or two still in here; the main one being that when doing a
docs-serve, it seems that the cleaning up of the online nav doesn't happen
when you Ctrl-C out of the server. I'm not 100% sure of the cause of
this (there could be a couple of different reasons).
For now... I'm ensuring that the online/offline nav files are excluded from
git. It would be nice to find out how best to always ensure that the online
nav file is removed so nobody attempting to update the docs gets confused
about what to edit.
Makes sense to update all the docs to reflect the work done in #1738 but I
feel it doesn't quite make sense to retrofit this into an old blog post --
especially if the code it is referring to was like that at the time and
likely still will be for a wee while after this gets republished.
