The Glowfic Constellation

[Moriwen]

When I click on the "unread" icon to start up reading a thread again, and then decide to favorite it, it tries to helpfully redirect me to "the same page" I was on once it's registered the favorite; unfortunately, what it actually does is redirect me to "threadname -- unread," which is of course actually the next page.

This was confusing until I figured out what was happening, and promptly became frustrating, especially because "oh hey I should read more of that thread -- oh hey if I like it enough to keep reading it I should favorite it" is a thought process I go through pretty regularly. Is there a way it could take me back to the location I was actually at?

[Marri]

I already have Larger Mobile Unread Buttons on the list! It's possible the list is 115 items. Eep.

That's probably easier to do going forwards as created than properly rendering historically, for reasons of "not searching every single post for image links and processing them on the fly if they're there", but I'll put it on the list.

I will list-item to special case page=unread for favoriting.

In other news, more memory profiling has happened, and as part and parcel of that we have upgraded a whole mess of things. Obsessively stalking memory graphs is a thing, guys, it's fine. Tests continue to pass but I am fundamentally suspicious of tests as Completely Accurate so if you see issues, lmk. (Yes, I know the dropdowns have changed visually slightly, but they should function the same; everything else shoooould be identical.) Similarly, if you think things are faster/slower/same as before, also useful to know. If this makes it through the next 24-48 hours without too many a) memory alerts b) errors or c) response time alerts, I will call it Probably Sane and cross off an item on my list (114 YO)

EDIT: My cache server is acting up (timing out, taking 1.2s to respond where it normally takes 13ms, etc). Still trying to figure out what it's doing; please disregard speed in the meantime. Likely to affect logged out users more than logged in, as they use cache more.

EDIT 2: Think it's behaving now...?

[pedromvilar]

That's probably easier to do going forwards as created than properly rendering historically, for reasons of "not searching every single post for image links and processing them on the fly if they're there", but I'll put it on the list.

Yeah that's fine, I just thought it was a saner default behaviour for images on post than the current one of using the image's native resolution which might fuck up mobile visualisation (credits to Throne for having suggested this to me a couple months back, I've been doing that manually ever since).

[Throne3d]

Yeah that's fine, I just thought it was a saner default behaviour for images on post than the current one of using the image's native resolution which might fuck up mobile visualisation (credits to Throne for having suggested this to me a couple months back, I've been doing that manually ever since).

<3

And yeah it's probably a good idea to try doing this before putting it in the database, for the sake of speed. We could probably update old images in a migration, though?

(As always, thank you Marri!)

[pedromvilar]

I'm not sure we should though? I mean, how to tell images that had their resolutions set apart from those that just used the standard configuration?

[Throne3d]

I'm not sure what you mean? If we update all the images that don't currently have 'style' attributes, then they'll be using the default, and if we then only update images that don't have style attributes on new posts, then the behavior will be consistent – default of "height:auto;max-width:100%" but if you specify a style on an image, override with that?

[pedromvilar]

I mean that someone might have set width and height manually to something other than the default and there's no way to tell whether that's the case

[Kappa]

...what exactly is the thing that it's impossible to tell whether someone has done?

[pedromvilar]

When you add an image to a post, by default the HTML sets the width and height to the image's actual real resolution, which means that if it's a particularly high res image it can stretch wider than your screen (and that happens almost all the time on mobile). That thing is impossible to distinguish from someone having decided to manually set the image to a certain specific resolution, afaik.

[Kappa]

Huh.