Alternative approach: display decay length value

[rugeli]

Problem

What is the problem this work solves, including
another approach to display gradient-related field (decay_length)
#110 can be closed if we decide to go with this implementation

Solution

What I/we did to solve this problem

• updated the UI to display value of decay_length instead of gradient strength
• updated editable range for decay_length to 0-5 (used to be 0-0.99)
• removed the numeric input box, now control only by a slider. Exact value will show as a tooltip

Note: the current label (e.g. Decay Length) and the description (e.g. Higher values will increase the decay length) are placeholders and pending ux review, open to suggestions for better wording

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Steps to Verify:

1. bun run dev
2. go to the Edit tab
3. switch between recipes to verify the decay length slider displays

Screenshots (optional):

Show-n-tell images/animations here

[github-actions]

Coverage Report

Status	Category	Percentage	Covered / Total
🔵	Lines	21.58%	365 / 1691
🔵	Statements	21.58%	365 / 1691
🔵	Functions	40.35%	23 / 57
🔵	Branches	71.42%	80 / 112

File Coverage

File	Stmts	% Branch	% Funcs	% Lines	Uncovered Lines
Changed Files
src/components/GradientInput/index.tsx	0%	0%	0%	0%	1, 8-10, 17, 19-23, 25, 27-31, 33, 35-38, 41-46, 48-52, 54-57, 59-92, 94, 96, 98
src/utils/gradient.ts	0%	100%	100%	0%	12, 25-28, 33-36, 39, 42-43, 46-47, 49-50, 53-57, 59-60, 62-63, 65-71, 73-81

Generated in workflow #120

[github-actions]

PR Preview Action v1.6.2
Preview removed because the pull request was closed.
2025-11-12 21:19 UTC

[ascibisz]

Looks good to me! As a follow up, we can update the schema for editable fields to use the terminology "decay length" instead of "gradient strength", but I think that's out of scope for this week

[rugeli]

Looks good to me! As a follow up, we can update the schema for editable fields to use the terminology "decay length" instead of "gradient strength", but I think that's out of scope for this week

thanks, agreed! i'll add a todo

• gradient_strength related cleanup(conversion, types, etc.)