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.

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

[Feature Request]: Add an option to open by default not-stacked coachmarks #5709

Closed
2 tasks
gcattan opened this issue Jul 22, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #6516
Closed
2 tasks

[Feature Request]: Add an option to open by default not-stacked coachmarks #5709

gcattan opened this issue Jul 22, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #6516
Labels
component: Coachmark needs: community contribution Issues that may be completed by contributors from our community type: enhancement 💡 New feature or request

Comments

@gcattan
Copy link
Contributor

gcattan commented Jul 22, 2024

The problem

I am opening a feature request, as suggested in the slack channel.

I would like to have this Coachmark to be open by default:

image

In the code it seems to be hardcoded depending on whether or not the overlayKind is slacked`:

image

The solution

Add an "isOpen" parameter to the Coachmark.
If it is undefined, the default behavior is the existing one (open for slacked coachmark and closed otherwise).
If it is defined, the Coachmark is open or closed initially depending on the value of "isOpen"

Design link

No response

Links to other materials

No response

Owner/main maintainer(s)

gcattan/Jamie Har

Second/backup maintainer(s)

No response

Product/offering

IBM Knowledge Center / Lineage

Business priority

Low to Medium

Code of Conduct

Tasks

Preview Give feedback
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Needs triage 🧐 in Carbon for IBM Products Jul 22, 2024
@oliviaflory oliviaflory added component: Coachmark type: enhancement 💡 New feature or request needs: design opinion Design question needs opinion from designer and removed status: needs triage 🕵️‍♀️ labels Aug 5, 2024
@oliviaflory oliviaflory moved this from Needs triage 🧐 to Needs refinement 🤓 in Carbon for IBM Products Aug 5, 2024
@oliviaflory
Copy link

@oliviaflory to check with Cameron and Paul from Security

@oliviaflory oliviaflory self-assigned this Aug 5, 2024
@oliviaflory
Copy link

From Cameron:

  • We are ok with this and could see a use case for it. Particularly in sandbox trials where it would be helpful to autodisplay the coachmark and still leave a persistent beacon after it’s closed.
  • Our team will update the usage guidance to highlight this use case as well.
  • In contrast, if it’s a first time use scenario where a coachmark would be displayed to drive usage—a beacon would not be necessary to include with the open coachmark NOR should it show up after dismissing the coachmark

@oliviaflory oliviaflory added needs: community contribution Issues that may be completed by contributors from our community and removed needs: design opinion Design question needs opinion from designer labels Aug 21, 2024
@elycheea
Copy link
Contributor

@gcattan @cameroncalder did sign off on this one. Would you be interested in contributing this to our library? Thanks!

@oliviaflory oliviaflory removed their assignment Aug 21, 2024
@elycheea elycheea moved this from Needs refinement 🤓 to Community backlog 🚞 in Carbon for IBM Products Aug 21, 2024
@gcattan
Copy link
Contributor Author

gcattan commented Aug 21, 2024

@elycheea yes, sure, I can give a hand here.

I forgot to update the description, so this is apparently my mistake, but this is not a community contribution. This comes from some design requirements from IBM Knowledge Center/Lineage.

I have updated the description accordingly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component: Coachmark needs: community contribution Issues that may be completed by contributors from our community type: enhancement 💡 New feature or request
Projects
Status: Done 🚀
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants