Bug 14377 – Support disabling individual CSS properties

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: FIXED
• Component: Web Inspector (Deprecated)

[Adam Roben (:aroben)]

One of Firebug's very handy features is easy disabling of individual CSS properties. It would be nice if the Inspector supported this as well.

[Charles Gaudette]

Part of Firebug's feature here is the ability to add a new property. This is less obvious than disabling — right-click on a CSS rule name, as in "body {", has New Property in the contextual menu.

I've also noted this in http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11920 .

[Timothy Hatcher]

Bug 16551 asks for the ability to disable DOM nodes.

[Adam Roben (:aroben)]

<rdar://problem/5712828>

[Timothy Hatcher]

Created attachment 22603 [details]
Proposed design

[Timothy Hatcher]

Created attachment 22604 [details]
Proposed patch

[Adam Roben (:aroben)]

Comment on attachment 22604 [details]
Proposed patch

+Object.hasProperties = function(obj)
+{
+    if (!obj)
+        return false;

This doesn't seem right. Won't the empty string evaluate to false here, even though it has properties?

I personally dislike booleans with a negative meaning, so everywhere you have a boolean "disabled" (or a class "disabled") I wish it were "enabled" instead. I find that easier to understand, because you end up with fewer double-negatives, like if (!disabled).

It would be great to land some tests with this.

r=me

[Anthony Ricaud]

Nice !

Any reason to put the checkbox after the property ? Putting the checkbox before the property seems better. It's easier to click on the good checkbox if the column is wide.

[Timothy Hatcher]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Nice !
> 
> Any reason to put the checkbox after the property ? Putting the checkbox before
> the property seems better. It's easier to click on the good checkbox if the
> column is wide.

The checkboxes are on the right, since they aren't visible all the time and the empty space on the left would leave less room for text.

[Anthony Ricaud]

There is already an empty space under the arrow that can be used

[Timothy Hatcher]

(In reply to comment #9)
> There is already an empty space under the arrow that can be used
> 

Not for shorthands. So all the properties would need to shift over even more.

[Timothy Hatcher]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (From update of attachment 22604 [details] [edit])
> +Object.hasProperties = function(obj)
> +{
> +    if (!obj)
> +        return false;
> 
> This doesn't seem right. Won't the empty string evaluate to false here, even
> though it has properties?
> 

Yep, changed to:

    if (typeof obj === "undefined" || typeof obj === "null")
        return false;

> I personally dislike booleans with a negative meaning, so everywhere you have a
> boolean "disabled" (or a class "disabled") I wish it were "enabled" instead. I
> find that easier to understand, because you end up with fewer double-negatives,
> like if (!disabled).

I went with disabled since it is the rare case and seemed better to not have all tree elements with an "enabled" class.

[Timothy Hatcher]

Landed in r35514.