We were previously planning a more interesting "Add to Cart"
integration with TNT, but it hasn't panned out! For now, we'll just
link to the NC Mall homepage.
Two reasons for this new title:
1. The pitch for "Get these items!" is weaker, now that we're not
getting the power-user integrations we'd planned around.
2. I literally only just thought of it now!
Oh right, if the *label* is `:active`, that only applies if we're
clicking it with our mouse. But if the *toggle* is actively, that
applies both to mouse events on the label, and keyboard events on the
checkbox.
Specifically, if a movie layer was the top layer, the `cursor: wait` on
the preview wouldn't show, because the iframe's *contents* would take
priority, and they were using the default cursor.
I thiiiink I've seen the status of a movie `<outfit-layer>` sometimes
be `loading` even when it's clearly already loaded and running. I
haven't been able to track down where and how that happens exactly, so
this is me acting on a hunch: that maybe the
I-would-have-thought-very-unlikely event that the iframe finishes
loading before the `<outfit-layer>` connects with its children maybe
happens more often than one might think!
In this change, we set up the iframe to receive `requestStatus`
messages, which it responds to with the status immediately. And we send
one of these when the `<outfit-layer>` first discovers the iframe.
Fingers crossed!
This doesn't do a good job maintaining state across morphs, but hey
it's Working At All in terms of wiring, and that's good!!
Also need to style up the toggle as a cute button instead of a visible
checkbox and the words "Play/pause"!
This is a nice extra error handler to have, but note that it *won't*
catch the case where the iframe successfully loads but the page returns
a bad status code. In this case, we'll just show the loading state
forever.
Add some unobtrusive white background for contrast, show it when the
Turbo frame is loading too, add a spinner cursor, and fix a silliness
of how we put the `position: absolute` stuff into the component-y part
of the hanger spinner instead of this specific use case lol oops!
Oh oops, this is the first script on the page with the `defer`
attribute, which means it needs to run before other scripts with
`defer`—and in this moment, it's not loading for me, which means the
pages aren't working!
I assume Plausible told me to use `defer` rather than `async` because
it expects the page to be ready; okay! Let's just move this to the
very body of the `<head>` instead, so it isn't taking priority over
anything else.
This doesn't actually really matter, because this doesn't actually get
used in the app right now? But I figure, hey it's not hard to maintain,
let's just do it for consistency!
Oh, I didn't realize the `_elem` variant of these parts of the
`Content-Security-Policy` is newer, and so doesn't even work on my
current version of Safari on my Mac.
My rationale at the time was: `script_src_elem` is stricter against
things like imports, and I figured, ok let's do the strictest policy
that works. But since it's not fully compatible with browsers even
*I'm* using right now, and I'm not aware of an actual problem it would
prevent, let's back off that a bit! This should have the same effective
security properties for our case.
Note that the effect of this compatibility issue wasn't *weakening* the
policy; it was being *too* strict, by blocking the scripts and the
stylesheets. This is because `script_src_elem` was ignored, and
`script_src` was absent, so it fell back to `default_src none`.
The most notable thing here is that we keep the movie iframes running!
So if you're trying different pets for an animated item, the animation
keeps going while the new pet layers load alongside it.
This is also nice for like, the species/color picker form, so we're not
taking away input elements from people who depend on e.g. keyboard
focus.
Not using this on the item page preview yet, but we will!
I like this approach over e.g. a web component specifically for the
sandboxing: while I don't exactly *distrust* JS that we're loading from
Neopets.com, I don't like the idea of *any* part of the site that
executes arbitrary JS unsafely at runtime, even if we theoretically
trust where it theoretically came from. I don't want any failure
upstream to have effects on us!
I copied basically all of the JS from a related project
`impress-media-server` that I had spun up at one point, to investigate
similar embed techniques. Easy peasy drop-in-squeezy!
Oh right okay, attributes like `status="loading"` are more of an API
for the caller, whereas the internal state API is where you wanna put
things that are meant to be used in CSS selectors and stuff.
Instead of doing all this listening to Turbo events etc to know when
outfit layers might have changed, making it a custom element and wiring
in the behavior to its actual lifecycle makes it always Just Work!
The UI for it is just basic for my own testing rn: it sets the preview
background to gray while loading, then back to white when done!
This uses the new CSS `:has()` selector: we have JS manage the loading
state on each layer, then the container just restyles itself based on
whether any currently-loading layers are present.
Also adapted from the Impress 2020 logic!
Note that I refactored `compatible_pet_type` to a series of scopes on
`PetType`. I think this is a simpler, clearer, and more flexible API!
This is a cute thing that I think sets us up for other stuff down the
line: move more of the outfit appearance logic into the `Outfit` class!
Now, we set up the item page with a temporary instance of `Outfit`,
then ask for its `visible_layers`.
Still missing restricted-zones logic and such, that's next!
Nice, gotta say, this is a pretty neat way of making things feel more
app-y! There's some missing pieces here about like, loading state etc,
but the vibes are pretty good, and the implementation was dead-easy!
Just stripping out the big React component, and having Rails output it!
There's a lot of work rn in extracting the Impress 2020 dependency from
the `wardrobe-2020` React app, and I'm just curious to see if we can
simplify it at all by pulling this stuff *way* back to basics, and
deleting the item page part of `wardrobe-2020` altogether.
In this draft, we regress a lot of functionality: it just shows the
item on a Blue Acara, with no ability to change it! I'm gonna play with
putting more of that back in.
I also haven't actually removed any of the item page React code; I just
stopped calling it. That can be a cleanup for another time, once we're
confident in this experiment!
Oh huh, TIL in Ruby `^` *always* means "start of line", whereas in many
languages' regular expression engines it means "start of string" unless
you enable a special multiline flag for the pattern.
I've fixed this in a number of expressions now!
I'm noticing this in the context of doing some security training work
where this the cause of a sample vulnerability, but, looking at our own
case, I don't think there was anything *abusable* here? But this is
just more correct, so let's be more correct!
I think the parens are silly now that this paragraph is just kinda all
bonus clarification info anyway. And I wanted to explain the cost
computation for the potions, and highlight the bundle thing!
If the item names are long, it helps to give them more room to breathe!
Whereas if they're short, it looks silly and makes it harder to scan
the table.
Just an extra bit of help for e.g. Dyeworks items with long names!
Huh, I thought I'd tried some invalid dates and they gave me
*surprising* output instead of raising an error. Well, maybe it can do
both, depending on exactly the nature of the unexpected input?
In any case, I found that a bad month name like "UwU" raised an error.
So, let's catch it if so!
Oh right, if I assume "date in the past means it's for next year", then
that means that, when the date *does pass*, we won't realize it!
e.g. if Owls says "Dyeable Thru July 15", then on July 14 we'll parse
that as July 15, 2024; but on July 16 we'll parse it as July 16, 2025,
and so we'll think it's *still* dyeable. Under this logic, it's
actually impossible for a limited Dyeworks date to *ever* be in the
past, I think!
I think 3 months is a good compromise: it gives Owls plenty of time to
update, but allows for events that could last as long as 9 months into
the future, if I'm doing my math right.
