-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.9k
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
12 columns system not taking full length of container #3743
Comments
Facing the same issue, did you find a solution? |
@smileys53, No for now I leave it that way expecting a fix in a future version. |
@idybil I have the same problem. It's quite annoying. I've done some research and this is the trace I'm following:
It's a bit of a big mistake, and I'm a bit surprised. I'll keep investigating. @jgthms what do you think? do you have any other solutions ? Here are screenshots of the issue. |
Same issue here with version 1.0.1 with the same conclusion as @SebConejo. Are there any ideas for a solution? |
I'd like to take time to contribute to the project fixing it. I'll try to make a pull-request this week. |
I think the issue is still valid, but I've used a fixed-grid as a work-around: https://bulma.io/documentation/grid/grid-cells/ |
This is about the Bulma CSS framework
I'm using Bulma [1.0.0]
My browser is: any
Overview of the problem
The 12 columns system of version 1.0.0 is not taking the full length of its container like it is in version 0.9.4.
Description
When using column with is-* and the total of the is-* is 12, the columns container does not take 100% of its parent.
In version 0.9.4, the result look like this: (the red line is the end of the parent container)
In version 1.0.0, the result look like this: (the red line is the end of the parent container)
In the screenshots above, we can notice that the width in version 1.0.0 is using a calculation which is not preset in version 0.9.4.
Expected behavior
Is this a bug in version 1.0.0, or it is intended to be this way ? Is it possible that the version 1.0.0 have the same behavior as version 0.9.4 ?
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: