Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Back Navigation/Favicon/Home page Icon #66

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jul 1, 2024
Merged

Conversation

jtcaovan
Copy link
Collaborator

@jtcaovan jtcaovan commented Jul 1, 2024

Pull Request Template

Description

This PR:

  • updates the favicon and header icon to Our415
  • adds BackNavigation component to services page

How Can This Be Tested/Reviewed?

  • favicon updated
  • home page icon updated
  • BackNavigation component added to services/organizations
  • Click on Service from search page -> click on the organization -> clicking Back in the back navigation should take you back to service page

Comment on lines +19 to +21
const backDestination = defaultReturnTo
? () => history.push(defaultReturnTo)
: () => history.goBack();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this simplification works. However, in order to cover all use cases as defined by our decision table, let's make defaultReturnTo required.

}: {
defaultReturnTo: string;
defaultReturnTo?: string;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Per suggestion to make this required, can we use PropTypes in functional components? It's been a while since I did this.

Suggested change
defaultReturnTo?: string;
defaultReturnTo: PropTypes.string.isRequired.


return (
<Button onClick={backDestination} variant="linkWhite" arrowVariant="before">
Back to Service Listings
{content}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think about making this the implicit {children} passed in as a block to allow for more flexibility?

@jtcaovan jtcaovan merged commit ab0c03d into development Jul 1, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants