Dark Mode v2

[fotrino]

This PR brings back Dark Mode changes introduced in PR 1209 without causing issues to existing applications with Jetstream installed as it was mentioned in Issue 1226.

Changes

• As suggested by @jessarcher in this comment, the views from views/resources remain unchanged to avoid issues with previous installs.

• Original files from views/resources have been copied to stubs/livewire/resources/views/ to keep track of changes.

• On new installations, the following directories stubs/livewire/resources/views/components stubs/livewire/resources/views/mail will be copied to views/vendor/jetstream/.

• On new installations without --dark directive, the command php artisan vendor:publish --tag=jetstream-views --force was removed. Views are already published as mentioned in point above.

• The changes introduced to strip dark classes PR 1224, dark nav menu in PR 1225 have been included.

Step to verify Issue 1226 is Fixed

1. Install new laravel app
2. Install Jetstream 2.16 composer require laravel/jetstream
3. Run php artisan jetstream:install livewire --teams
4. Check that there are not any published jetstream views in views/vendor/jetstream
5. Update Jetstream to "laravel/jetstream": "dev-dark-mode-v2"
6. Include the PR repo.

    "repositories": [
        {
            "type": "vcs",
            "url": "https://github.com/fotrino/jetstream.git"
        }
      ],

7. Run composer update

[jessarcher]

Thanks for tackling this one again @fotrino! I'll check it out properly once it's marked ready.

[fotrino]

Hi @jessarcher when you have a chance, take a look at the PR. Thanks!

[taylorotwell]

So does this essentially duplicate the Livewire views in Jetstream for the time being? The old legacy views and the new views that support dark mode?

[fotrino]

Yes, exactly. This will prevent any issues in previous installations without published views & new ones will work as user defines upon installation (with or without dark mode) because all the components are being published from the livewire stubs.

[taylorotwell]

@fotrino ... @jessarcher can correct me if I'm wrong, but we also batted around the idea of just tagging a Jetstream 3.0 - this would allow us to make the change without having to have the duplicated views for backwards compatibility.

[fotrino]

@taylorotwell that sounds even better!

What do you think about moving the files from resources/views/ to stubs/livewire/resources/views/?
I think it would make it easier to determine that those components belongs to the livewire stubs.

Also, the following command php artisan vendor:publish --tag=jetstream-views from JetstreamServiceProvider could be removed, since the files would already be published in new installations & previous ones upgrading from 2.x to 3.x should have already publish their assets in order to upgrade.

[jessarcher]

I agree re: moving this to Jetstream 3.0. We'll just need to mention in the upgrade guide about publishing views prior to upgrading (if the user hasn't already).

What do you think about moving the files from resources/views/ to stubs/livewire/resources/views/? I think it would make it easier to determine that those components belongs to the livewire stubs.

I had already done some work on this in #1118. If you take a look at master you'll notice the root-level resources directory is already gone.

Also, the following command php artisan vendor:publish --tag=jetstream-views from JetstreamServiceProvider could be removed, since the files would already be published in new installations & previous ones upgrading from 2.x to 3.x should have already publish their assets in order to upgrade.

I'd already removed this in master as well 🙌

I've just gone ahead and merged the latest 2.x changes into master and fixed all of the conflicts, so it should hopefully be straight-forward to apply these dark mode changes there 🤞

The main conflict you may run into with the Inertia stack is that in 3.x the authenticated user is now shared under auth.user instead of just user (#1073).

Thanks again for your work on this!

[taylorotwell]

Hey @fotrino! Based on @jessarcher's feedback, could you send this PR to 10.x accordingly? Thanks!

[fotrino]

Hey @taylorotwell, just created a PR on master based on the feedback from @jessarcher 😃