Bug 812416
Summary: | The skin from examples looks bad, too much whitespace | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Portal Platform 5 | Reporter: | Viliam Rockai <vrockai> | ||||
Component: | Portal | Assignee: | Peter Palaga <ppalaga> | ||||
Status: | VERIFIED --- | QA Contact: | |||||
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
Version: | 5.2.1.CR02 | CC: | epp-bugs, mvecera, theute | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | 5.2.2.ER03 | ||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | Type: | Bug | |||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Viliam Rockai
2012-04-13 16:32:49 UTC
Created attachment 577397 [details]
skin screenshot
Please specify the steps to reproduce the described behavior. *** Bug 840457 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** The duplicate Bug 840457 by Viliam Rockai has added some pieces of information which are necessary to reproduce this bug: > Description of problem: > Simple skin looks bad on sample-portal (both have to be deployed > from examples). Please see the attached screenshot. The problem > consists of huge white space and corner decorations at the bottom > of the page. > > Fix should be really easy, in > > div.UIPageBody > div.UIPage > > change > > padding: 0 8px; > > to > > padding: 0 0; Fixed as proposed by Viliam. The padding: 0 8px rule was removed from /exo.portal.parent/examples/skins/simpleskin/src/main/webapp/skin/SimpleSkin/portal/webui/component/view/UIPage/Stylesheet.css. Clearly the changed padding affects also /portal/classic. The change is acceptable, IMO. This was fixed and commited at ER03 release, changing target release and setting as verified. Verified again in 5.2.2.CR01. |