Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Users Search
Help Dashboard Sign In Sign Up
Q&A Blog
Q&A
Posts Tags Edits
Ask Question

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Post History

80%
+6 −0
Q&A Preview of edits so reviewers can see what has changed

When looking at a pending edit on the suggested edits page, only the markdown shows. There is no preview of how this will be rendered. This presents two problems: Any subtle error introduced by...

0 answers  ·  posted 2y ago by trichoplax‭  ·  edited 2y ago by trichoplax‭

Question feature-request editing-posts editor-preview
#3: Post edited by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2022-11-16T00:51:46Z (about 2 years ago)
Adjust wording as HTML does not always contain markdown
  • When looking at a pending edit on the suggested edits page, only the markdown shows. There is no preview of how this will be rendered.
  • This presents two problems:
  • 1. Any subtle error introduced by the edit that prevents the post from rendering correctly will be difficult to spot, risking a faulty edit being accepted
  • 1. An edit that fixes a subtle error (perhaps by introducing a blank line), will look redundant to the edit reviewer, risking the fix being rejected
  • ## Example
  • [By design, the `<details>` tag requires that the markdown contained within it be separated from the surrounding HTML by a blank line](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/287279).
  • This means that the following two code blocks, that look near identical, render very differently.
  • ### Without a blank line
  • ```text
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ```
  • renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the raw markdown has not been rendered)
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ### With a blank line
  • ```text
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ```
  • renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the markdown has now been correctly rendered)
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ## Real-world occurrence
  • I'm raising this following suggesting an [edit that included fixing a `<details>` section](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/suggested-edit/979) where the first image does not render due to the lack of a blank line. If I hadn't also changed another part of the post in the same suggested edit, it would have looked redundant to any reviewer not familiar with this rare case of a blank line in HTML being relevant to the rendered result.
  • When looking at a pending edit on the suggested edits page, only the markdown shows. There is no preview of how this will be rendered.
  • This presents two problems:
  • 1. Any subtle error introduced by the edit that prevents the post from rendering correctly will be difficult to spot, risking a faulty edit being accepted
  • 1. An edit that fixes a subtle error (perhaps by introducing a blank line), will look redundant to the edit reviewer, risking the fix being rejected
  • ## Example
  • [By design, the `<details>` tag requires that any markdown contained within it be separated from the surrounding HTML by a blank line](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/287279).
  • This means that the following two code blocks, that look near identical, render very differently.
  • ### Without a blank line
  • ```text
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ```
  • renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the raw markdown has not been rendered)
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ### With a blank line
  • ```text
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ```
  • renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the markdown has now been correctly rendered)
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ## Real-world occurrence
  • I'm raising this following suggesting an [edit that included fixing a `<details>` section](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/suggested-edit/979) where the first image does not render due to the lack of a blank line. If I hadn't also changed another part of the post in the same suggested edit, it would have looked redundant to any reviewer not familiar with this rare case of a blank line in HTML being relevant to the rendered result.
#2: Post edited by user avatar Ethan‭ · 2022-11-16T00:50:31Z (about 2 years ago) 
Preview of edits so reviewers can see what has changed
  • When looking at a pending edit on the suggested edits page, only the markdown shows. There is no preview of how this will be rendered.
  • This presents two problems:
  • 1. Any subtle error introduced by the edit that prevents the post from rendering correctly will be difficult to spot, risking a faulty edit being accepted
  • 1. An edit that fixes a subtle error (perhaps by introducing a blank line), will look redundant to the edit reviewer, risking the fix being rejected
  • ## Example
  • [By design, the `<details>` tag requires that markdown contained within it be separated from the surrounding HTML by a blank line](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/287279).
  • This means that the following two code blocks, that look near identical, render very differently.
  • ### Without a blank line
  • ```text
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ```
  • renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the raw markdown has not been rendered)
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ### With a blank line
  • ```text
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ```
  • renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the markdown has now been correctly rendered)
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ## Real world occurrence
  • I'm raising this following suggesting an [edit that included fixing a `<details>` section](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/suggested-edit/979) where the first image does not render due to the lack of a blank line. If I hadn't also changed another part of the post in the same suggested edit, it would have looked redundant to any reviewer not familiar with this rare case of a blank line in HTML being relevant to the rendered result.
  • When looking at a pending edit on the suggested edits page, only the markdown shows. There is no preview of how this will be rendered.
  • This presents two problems:
  • 1. Any subtle error introduced by the edit that prevents the post from rendering correctly will be difficult to spot, risking a faulty edit being accepted
  • 1. An edit that fixes a subtle error (perhaps by introducing a blank line), will look redundant to the edit reviewer, risking the fix being rejected
  • ## Example
  • [By design, the `<details>` tag requires that the markdown contained within it be separated from the surrounding HTML by a blank line](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/287279).
  • This means that the following two code blocks, that look near identical, render very differently.
  • ### Without a blank line
  • ```text
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ```
  • renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the raw markdown has not been rendered)
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ### With a blank line
  • ```text
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ```
  • renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the markdown has now been correctly rendered)
  • <details><summary>Summary</summary>
  • - details
  • - details
  • - details
  • </details>
  • ## Real-world occurrence
  • I'm raising this following suggesting an [edit that included fixing a `<details>` section](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/suggested-edit/979) where the first image does not render due to the lack of a blank line. If I hadn't also changed another part of the post in the same suggested edit, it would have looked redundant to any reviewer not familiar with this rare case of a blank line in HTML being relevant to the rendered result.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2022-11-14T15:38:56Z (about 2 years ago) 
Preview of edits so reviewers can see what has changed
When looking at a pending edit on the suggested edits page, only the markdown shows. There is no preview of how this will be rendered.

This presents two problems:
1. Any subtle error introduced by the edit that prevents the post from rendering correctly will be difficult to spot, risking a faulty edit being accepted
1. An edit that fixes a subtle error (perhaps by introducing a blank line), will look redundant to the edit reviewer, risking the fix being rejected

## Example

[By design, the `<details>` tag requires that markdown contained within it be separated from the surrounding HTML by a blank line](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/287279).

This means that the following two code blocks, that look near identical, render very differently.

### Without a blank line

```text
<details><summary>Summary</summary>
- details
- details
- details
</details>
```

renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the raw markdown has not been rendered)

<details><summary>Summary</summary>
- details
- details
- details
</details>

### With a blank line

```text
<details><summary>Summary</summary>

- details
- details
- details
</details>
```

renders as: (click on the arrow to expand and see the markdown has now been correctly rendered)

<details><summary>Summary</summary>

- details
- details
- details
</details>

## Real world occurrence

I'm raising this following suggesting an [edit that included fixing a `<details>` section](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/suggested-edit/979) where the first image does not render due to the lack of a blank line. If I hadn't also changed another part of the post in the same suggested edit, it would have looked redundant to any reviewer not familiar with this rare case of a blank line in HTML being relevant to the rendered result.
feature-request editing-posts editor-preview