Job listings with filtering challenge with React.js

Community feedback

• 

  Joran Minjon•610

  @DrKlonkPosted over 3 years ago

  Looks good to me!

  What do you mean with the extra space below the text? Which text(s) do you mean?

  I think the buttons look a bit off centre because of 1) the font-family and 2) the fact that these words have little letters going down of the baseline (like g, p, or y for instance), making it a bit more obvious. It's a bit harder to get annoyed with the pixels in "Python" than it is in "Frontend", in my opinion.

  Here's my font-family proof: If you change the font to monospace, the clickable labels look fine.

  Fix for the smaller labels: On the labels like "NEW!" you could just add some more padding to the top in the job__feat class. I don't see much problem with that, except when you decide to change the complete font family, in which case you'd need to adapt at most 2 lines of CSS. No biggy.

  Minor improvement: I'd also add a good old cursor: pointer; to the job__position class.

  Cheers, Joran

  2

  ---

  

  Joran Minjon•610

  @DrKlonkPosted over 3 years ago

  This image shows how this font has a higher number of pixels above the top of a small "o" than below it. That will differ per font.

  (Should've put the above measurement next to the "h")

  1

  

  Marco•265

  @MarcoCarpoPosted over 3 years ago

  I understand, now it's clearer to me, it depends on the font itself then. Indeed the figure explains well. Thanks for the advice, I'll apply them to the project!

  0
• 

  Michal•665

  @mbart13Posted over 3 years ago

  hey, I just completed this challenge, so I thought I would share my thoughts. This is really good and functionality is actually working, which is not always the case with some other challenges I saw :) I like that you also used reducer.
  One thing that maybe I would do differently is, you are keeping in your state both jobs and filteredJobs. I think you should keep only jobs, and filter them in the component Imagine you have 100K jobs, not 10. You would initially had twice as many data

  0