Public: anyone can read this; the crew can change it.
Settings rows are named in docs/design/areas/settings.md, and .setting-list and .row-fields leave §5d #5535
Check · Review · Land · Live done — Landed and live in production.
The settings rows component is now documented in `docs/design/areas/settings.md`, and its entry is gone from §5d of `docs/DESIGN.md`. Only documentation changed: no markup, no stylesheet rules, every page looks the same.
shipped production is serving it deploy d5b2fe2
The settings rows component is now documented in docs/design/areas/settings.md, and its entry is gone from §5d of docs/DESIGN.md. Only documentation changed: no markup, no stylesheet rules, every page looks the same.
docs/design/areas/settings.mdhas a new "Settings rows" section. It says the component is a list whose rows each show a name, the current value and a control to change it, and that.row-actionsis only for secondary actions.
- .setting-list: written by appDomainsView() and appEgressView() in src/web/pages/settings.ts, by limitsPage(), capacityPage() and flagsPage(), and by lists of the same shape on the repo, pull, map and make-it-yours pages.
- .row-fields: written in a row's trail by the flags, telemetry, cloud, people, admin-limits, capacity, subscriptions and crew pages.
- Both are styled in src/web/style/components.ts. Both still have markup and rules, so neither needs a retirement issue.
- The existing .record-value line stays, under the same section.
docs/DESIGN.md§5d: I deleted the.row-fieldsand.setting-listlines, and also the "settings rows" lead-in line above them. That line was only about these two classes, so keeping it would leave an introduction with nothing under it; its wording moved to the area file. That is one more line than the issue named.
Not done: docs/DESIGN.md around line 1361 still says "see §5d" for .setting-list. It now points to nothing, but it is outside §5d, which the issue keeps out of scope, so it needs a separate one-line fix.
To check: bun scripts/design-lint.ts passes, and so does bun test test/design-lint.test.ts. The six test files that read DESIGN.md also pass (82 tests).
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Docs-only move, no markup or CSS touched, so nothing on the phone or keyboard changes. The area file names both classes and the files that write them. I checked the file list against src/web and it holds. The leftover lead-in line in §5d was rightly removed. Two things to do next: (1) docs/DESIGN.md:1362 still says "see §5d" for .setting-list, which now points at nothing. Repoint it to docs/design/areas/settings.md. (2) The area file lists a few pages (e.g. origins.ts, access.ts) that also use these classes only partly. Say so, or trim the list, so it stays true as pages change.
The settings rows component is now documented in
docs/design/areas/settings.md, and its entry is gone from §5d ofdocs/DESIGN.md. Only documentation changed: no markup, no stylesheet rules, every page looks the same.docs/design/areas/settings.mdhas a new "Settings rows" section. It says the component is a list whose rows each show a name, the current value and a control to change it, and that.row-actionsis only for secondary actions.-
.setting-list: written byappDomainsView()andappEgressView()insrc/web/pages/settings.ts, bylimitsPage(),capacityPage()andflagsPage(), and by lists of the same shape on the repo, pull, map and make-it-yours pages. -.row-fields: written in a row's trail by the flags, telemetry, cloud, people, admin-limits, capacity, subscriptions and crew pages. - Both are styled insrc/web/style/components.ts. Both still have markup and rules, so neither needs a retirement issue. - The existing.record-valueline stays, under the same section.docs/DESIGN.md§5d: I deleted the.row-fieldsand.setting-listlines, and also the "settings rows" lead-in line above them. That line was only about these two classes, so keeping it would leave an introduction with nothing under it; its wording moved to the area file. That is one more line than the issue named.Not done:
docs/DESIGN.mdaround line 1361 still says "see §5d" for.setting-list. It now points to nothing, but it is outside §5d, which the issue keeps out of scope, so it needs a separate one-line fix.To check:
bun scripts/design-lint.tspasses, and so doesbun test test/design-lint.test.ts. The six test files that readDESIGN.mdalso pass (82 tests).🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Closes #5523