Refactor gradient implementation to work around prettier/prettier#17058 #16072
+112
−107
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We encoded the `,` in the `--tw-gradient-position` to ensure that _if_
the `var(--tw-gradient-position)` is used, that the `,` was there. And
if the variable was _not_ used that we didn't end up with a double `,,`
rendering the gradient invalid.
However, when running prettier (there might be other tools that do this
as well), the trailing comma in the `--tw-gradient-position` was removed
which made the entire gradient invalid. E.g.:
```diff
.bg-gradient-to-r {
- --tw-gradient-position: to right in oklab,;
+ --tw-gradient-position: to right in oklab;
background-image: linear-gradient(var(--tw-gradient-stops));
}
```
Notice how the `,` is removed.
This commit fixes that, by moving the `,` to where it is used. The only
side effect is that we have to guarantee that the
`--tw-gradient-position` is always present. In our testing (and using UI
tests) this should be the case.
Thus, hopefully this fix is safe in all situations.
adamwathan
changed the title
adamwathan
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
|
@RobinMalfait upgrading to @utility gradient-upleveled-image {
@apply from-hotPink/[0.93] via-pink/[0.93] to-purple/[0.93] bg-[linear-gradient(170deg,var(--tw-gradient-stops)),url('/bg.webp')] via-27% bg-cover [background-position:center_75%] bg-no-repeat;
}Interestingly, it's also generating the Before ( .gradient-upleveled-image {
background-image: linear-gradient(170deg,var(--tw-gradient-stops)),url(/bg.webp);
--tw-gradient-from: color-mix(in oklab,var(--color-hotPink)93%,#0000);
--tw-gradient-stops: var(--tw-gradient-via-stops,var(--tw-gradient-position,)var(--tw-gradient-from)var(--tw-gradient-from-position),var(--tw-gradient-to)var(--tw-gradient-to-position));
--tw-gradient-via: color-mix(in oklab,var(--color-pink)93%,#0000);
--tw-gradient-via-stops: var(--tw-gradient-position,)var(--tw-gradient-from)var(--tw-gradient-from-position),var(--tw-gradient-via)var(--tw-gradient-via-position),var(--tw-gradient-to)var(--tw-gradient-to-position);
--tw-gradient-via-position: 27%;
--tw-gradient-to: color-mix(in oklab,var(--color-purple)93%,#0000);
background-position: 50% 75%;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-size: cover
}After ( .gradient-upleveled-image {
background-image: linear-gradient(170deg,var(--tw-gradient-stops)),url('/images/bg.webp');
--tw-gradient-from: color-mix(in oklab, var(--color-hotPink) 93%, transparent);
/* 1 */
--tw-gradient-stops: var(--tw-gradient-via-stops, var(--tw-gradient-position), var(--tw-gradient-from) var(--tw-gradient-from-position), var(--tw-gradient-to) var(--tw-gradient-to-position));
--tw-gradient-via: color-mix(in oklab, var(--color-pink) 93%, transparent);
--tw-gradient-via-stops: var(--tw-gradient-position), var(--tw-gradient-from) var(--tw-gradient-from-position), var(--tw-gradient-via) var(--tw-gradient-via-position), var(--tw-gradient-to) var(--tw-gradient-to-position);
/* 2 */
--tw-gradient-stops: var(--tw-gradient-via-stops);
--tw-gradient-via-position: 27%;
--tw-gradient-to: color-mix(in oklab, var(--color-purple) 93%, transparent);
/* 3 */
--tw-gradient-stops: var(--tw-gradient-via-stops, var(--tw-gradient-position), var(--tw-gradient-from) var(--tw-gradient-from-position), var(--tw-gradient-to) var(--tw-gradient-to-position));
background-size: cover;
background-position: center 75%;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
}Maybe the If this syntax should be supported and it's actually a bug, then happy to also create a new issue with this report above. |
It appears as if this is true, at least starting with Tailwind CSS 4.0.2. Using the new @apply
from-hotPink/[0.93] via-pink/[0.93] to-purple/[0.93]
- bg-[linear-gradient(170deg,var(--tw-gradient-stops)),url('/bg.webp')]
+ bg-linear-170
+ bg-[linear-gradient(var(--tw-gradient-stops)),url('/bg.webp')]
via-27% bg-cover [background-position:center_75%] bg-no-repeat; |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes an issue where tools like Prettier remove important trailing commas in CSS variables, making gradients invalid.
We encoded the
,in the--tw-gradient-positionto ensure that if thevar(--tw-gradient-position)is used, that the,was there. And if the variable was not used that we didn't end up with a double,,rendering the gradient invalid.However, when running Prettier (there might be other tools that do this as well), the trailing comma in the
--tw-gradient-positionwas removed which made the entire gradient invalid. E.g.:.bg-gradient-to-r { - --tw-gradient-position: to right in oklab,; + --tw-gradient-position: to right in oklab; background-image: linear-gradient(var(--tw-gradient-stops)); }Notice how the
,is removed.This PR fixes that, by moving the
,to where the variable is being used. The only side effect is that we have to guarantee that the--tw-gradient-positionis always present. In our testing (and using UI tests) this should be the case.Related Prettier issue: prettier/prettier#17058
Fixes: #16037