Skip to main content

CSS Selecting elements that are immediate children only

I have been working on my integration skills recently with @Trullock  and have been really enjoying it. Coming from a foul tables background and not really looking at much CSS for a couple of years has left me in a bit of a rut. Especially when it comes to integrating from a proper design from scratch and not just pinching bits from all over the place. I will try and publish some more little gems I have been shown when I get round to it.

I was quite pleased with this CSS Selector. We used this both in the CSS and for getting a hold of things in JQuery.

When you want to select only immediate children of a class, id or element you can use the following:

.parent.child /* For immediate children that are classes... */

/parent > ul /* For immediate children that are elements... */

This will then stop the browser / jquery looking further down the tree and wasting time, memory and potentially finding something you don't want the style to apply to or JQuery to get hold of. 

This might be obvious to some but it was a nice little tip for me!

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Creating star ratings in HTML and Javascript

I'd searched around a little for some shortcuts to help in doing this but I couldn't find anything satisfactory that included the ability to pull the rating off again for saving. I'd ended up coming up with this rather cheeky solution. Hopefully it helps you too! This is my first post in a while (I stopped blogging properly about 8 years ago!) It's strange coming back to it. Blogger feels very crusty and old by todays standards too.

Make your objects immutable by default

More about the Good Dojo In my post last week , I discussed creating objects that are instantiated safely. Please go back and read if you are interested. At the end of the post, I mentioned that I'd also written the class so it was immutable when instantiated. This is important!!! I feel like a broken record in repeating this but I am sure at the time of writing your code, you aren't modifying your object all over the place and so are safe in the belief that protecting against mutability is overkill. Please remember though, your code could be around for a hell of a long time. You aren't writing your code for now... you are writing for the next fool that comes along (including you) . Nothing is more upsetting that coming back to fix a bug on some wonderfully crafted code to say "Who has butchered my code?!", but often you were involved at the start of the process. You made the code easy to modify, allowing objects to be used / reused / modified without thi

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second