Skip to content

Conversation

@ascibisz
Copy link
Contributor

@ascibisz ascibisz commented Nov 14, 2025

Problem

Saurabh's feedback in slack indicates that the strong / weak labels on gradient strength are misleading as they stand. We may add them back in with some other changes to wording, but for now we're just removing them to eliminate confusion.

Critical change:

  • Hide the guide text “weak/strong” under the slider max/min value for now
  • Update the guide text of Decay Length to “Smaller decay length indicates stronger bias”

Solution

Removed labels for weak and strong on for gradient strength and changed gradient strength description (both in fallback case in code and in firebase)

Based on feedback, also

  • removed description for gradient selection
  • update recipe form size to account for description, so we don't need to scroll to see "re-run" button
  • set fallback for gradient strength max to 1 instead of 5

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2025

Coverage Report

Status Category Percentage Covered / Total
🔵 Lines 19.64% 368 / 1873
🔵 Statements 19.64% 368 / 1873
🔵 Functions 39.34% 24 / 61
🔵 Branches 70.43% 81 / 115
File Coverage
File Stmts % Branch % Funcs % Lines Uncovered Lines
Changed Files
src/components/GradientInput/index.tsx 0% 0% 0% 0% 1, 7-9, 16, 18-22, 24-28, 30, 32-40, 42-46, 48-51, 53-93, 95, 97, 99
src/utils/gradient.ts 0% 100% 100% 0% 12, 25-28, 33-36, 39-43, 45, 47-48, 51, 54-55, 58-59, 61-62, 65-69, 71-72, 74-75, 77-84, 86-94
Generated in workflow #182

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2025

PR Preview Action v1.6.2
Preview removed because the pull request was closed.
2025-11-14 23:24 UTC

@ascibisz ascibisz marked this pull request as draft November 14, 2025 21:07
@ascibisz ascibisz changed the title switch sides of strong and weak on gradient strength remove strong and weak labels on gradient strength Nov 14, 2025
@ascibisz ascibisz marked this pull request as ready for review November 14, 2025 21:36
@rugeli rugeli self-requested a review November 14, 2025 21:49
height: calc(
100vh - var(--header-height) - var(--recipe-select-height) -
var(--tab-height) - var(--footer-height)
var(--tab-height) - var(--footer-height) - var(--description-height)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

super nit: when switching from any recipe to multi-spheres, the re-run button shifts slightly (not fully fixed) because that recipe has more editable fields. I don’t think it’s blocking, just something I noticed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah good catch. I think that we'll address this in some follow up work for improvements to the scrollable area next week, I'm kinda leaving it at "the re-run button is consistently viewable, that's good enough for today"

--recipe-select-height: 52px;
--tab-height: 62px;
--footer-height: 64px;
--description-height: 102px;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm working on a dynamic fix for this

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

awesome - Thao had some comments in slack in cellpack-site about improvements for the scrollable area, I'm just not a strong enough front end developer to knock that out in time today without introducing other bugs, so I did this bandaid fix for now

@ascibisz ascibisz merged commit 9d07b50 into main Nov 14, 2025
2 checks passed
@ascibisz ascibisz deleted the fix/switch-weak-strong branch November 14, 2025 23:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants