Skip to content

fix(settings): securities-provider checkmarks invisible in dark mode#2430

Open
vlnd0 wants to merge 1 commit into
we-promise:mainfrom
vlnd0:fix/securities-providers-checkbox-dark-mode
Open

fix(settings): securities-provider checkmarks invisible in dark mode#2430
vlnd0 wants to merge 1 commit into
we-promise:mainfrom
vlnd0:fix/securities-providers-checkbox-dark-mode

Conversation

@vlnd0

@vlnd0 vlnd0 commented Jun 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Problem

On the hosting settings page ("Securities Providers"), the checkboxes are invisible when checked in dark mode — a checked box shows a white check on a white fill, so there's no visual indication of which providers are enabled.

Cause

app/views/settings/hostings/_provider_selection.html.erb styled the checkbox with raw Tailwind utilities:

class="rounded border-primary text-primary focus:ring-primary"

In dark mode text-primary resolves to white. The browser's checked state fills the box with currentColor and draws the checkmark in white → white-on-white.

Every other checkbox in the app uses the theme-aware design-system component (settings/preferences, transaction filters, goals, trades, etc.):

class="checkbox checkbox--light"

.checkbox--light has a @variant theme-dark block that renders a dark check on a light fill in dark mode.

Fix

Use the design-system checkbox checkbox--light classes, consistent with the rest of the app. One-line change.

Test

  • Light mode: unchanged.
  • Dark mode: checked providers now show a visible dark checkmark on a light fill.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Style
    • Updated the visual styling of checkboxes in the hosting provider selection interface for a lighter appearance.

The securities-provider checkboxes used raw Tailwind utilities
(rounded border-primary text-primary focus:ring-primary) instead of the
design-system .checkbox component. In dark mode text-primary resolves to
white, so a checked box rendered a white check on a white fill and the
checkmark was invisible.

Switch to the theme-aware .checkbox checkbox--light classes used by every
other checkbox in the app (settings/preferences, transaction filters,
etc.), which render a dark check on a light fill in dark mode.
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review Change Stack

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: e2facc72-b96f-4439-9fa7-87eda9a8fa4b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fdcd0c7 and 2f70704.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • app/views/settings/hostings/_provider_selection.html.erb

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A single CSS class attribute on a checkbox input in app/views/settings/hostings/_provider_selection.html.erb is changed from inline Tailwind utility classes (rounded border-primary text-primary focus:ring-primary) to component classes (checkbox checkbox--light).

Changes

Checkbox styling in provider selection

Layer / File(s) Summary
Checkbox class replacement
app/views/settings/hostings/_provider_selection.html.erb
The securities-provider checkbox input's class attribute is updated from rounded border-primary text-primary focus:ring-primary to checkbox checkbox--light.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Poem

A checkbox once wore Tailwind's coat,
With border-primary and a ring to note.
Now dressed in checkbox--light instead,
A cleaner class upon its head. 🐇✨
One line changed — the rabbit hops ahead!

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title accurately describes the main change: fixing invisible checkmarks in dark mode for the securities-provider section.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@superagent-security

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

@savionlee

Copy link
Copy Markdown

this would be great!

@vlnd0

vlnd0 commented Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@jjmata if all ok, i suggest to merge

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants