fix: border in search field

[AIDEA775]

When hovering over the search field, the 2px border makes it expand and take up more space, causing the content around it to be shifted.

Using an outline, the search field doesn't use additional space.

This is more noticiable in sites like https://sphinx-book-theme.readthedocs.io/

[choldgraf]

For comparison, here's a GIF of old and new behavior:

Seems like a good fix to me 👍 thanks!

[drammock]

ping @gabalafou, this seems like something in your wheelhouse --- you may have even already done this on the feature-focus branch?

[gabalafou]

Correct. It should be fixed in #1564.

For some reason the latest Read the Docs preview build failed, but you can verify the fix in the last successful Read the Docs build

[gabalafou]

While I appreciate work done in this PR to improve the theme, I would prefer if we do not merge this code because Bootstrap uses box-shadow for a number of effects, and so to play nicely with Bootstrap and avoid double halos around elements, where you get a :hover outline and a :focus-visible box-shadow, #1564 uses box-shadow instead of outline.

[AIDEA775]

Oh! I didn't see your PR before. Your fix looks better, kudos! I will close this one.

[choldgraf]

@gabalafou do we have a list of items to get into the feature-focus branch before merging it? Or more generally, what's the process by which we'll decide it is ready to merge and then do so?

[gabalafou]

There are 3 remaining PRs waiting be merged into the feature-focus branch. Once those are merged, and any failing checks are addressed, then the whole PR (#1564) will be ready for review. Review should hopefully be swift, as all of the code in the PR already went through one round of review. I'm thinking that review would be giving the whole set of code changes a high-level scan, as well as some spot checking against the preview build.

[choldgraf]

Amazing - that sounds like a good plan to me.

I'm thinking that review would be giving the whole set of code changes a high-level scan, as well as some spot checking against the preview build

I agree with this take - IMO it's already been vetted through your numerous PRs already, so there should be a quick pass for any really obvious regressions, but if nothing obvious pops out we just merge it and iterate from there.