- Closes#1889
Whilst a simple change theoretically, the card has such a collection of
surfaces that can overlap other surfaces, it's challenging to get this
to work right! There's a real chance this will have broken something
z-index related (e.g. X overlaps Y when it should not), or (for related
reasons) broken curver corners on the card.
Whilst the Frigate support in this card is the best among camera
engines, the name incorrectly suggests that Frigate is a requirement.
Instead, to broaden the appeal, change to more camera agnostic name.
This does not suggest any change in priority, role or support for
Frigate.
This change is likely to be bug prone, due to the size of the rename --
the code contains 1500+ references to "Frigate" most of which make sense
to rename, some which do not, all of which needed human assessment.
- Closes#1298
BREAKING CHANGE: References to `frigate-card` in all kinds of
configuration need to be updated to `advanced-camera-card`. An automated
config upgrade should take care of the majority of usecases (click `Edit
-> Upgrade -> Save`), though may not be perfect.
- Closes#1818
**Why add this?**: A repeated pattern is that an issue is fixed in the
card, a new build is released and users will incorrectly believe it's
not yet fixed due to their browser caching the old code. This results in
wasting their time, and my time.
**But it's obnoxious!**: I'm pretty sensitive to this (hence adding
these messages!), so let me know how terrible you find it. You can
disable it with:
```yaml
performance:
features:
card_loading_indicator: false
```
This is a fairly non-trivial change in terms of consequence, so a greater than average chance something breaks. This is necessary since some cameras (e.g. Reolink) are materially slower to fetch media, and this change substantially improves card responsiveness.
* The `low-performance` profile itself had parse errors: fix them!
* Do not silently swallow override parse errors, they are always a user issue
* Minor error message rendering improvements to show multiple pieces of context
* fix: Replace `max_height` with `height`
BREAKING CHANGE: This entirely removes `min_height`, and replaces `max_height` with `height`. The behavior is obviously not exactly the same, but the prior behavior did not actually work correctly. CSS does not limit the height of child elements that are `100%` of their parents height if the parent does not have an explicit height set (this caused spillage over the set max height). As such, it's simpler to just allow the user to set the actual height of the card should they need to do so, with a (hopefully) minor loss of flexibility.
* Test fixes
Dermot Duffy