docs : added a searchable link #225

[MadhaviMandalia]

Proposed changes

• Added a searchable link to the Icons description.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change).

Checklist:

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[MadhaviMandalia]

Hi @DanielRuf ,
Why is lint comment massages failing, should I not mention (#225) issue in the commit massage please let me know.

Thanks.

[DanielRuf]

@MadhaviMandalia commitlint reports this:

⧗ input: Icon linked changed #225
✖ subject may not be empty [subject-empty]
✖ type may not be empty [type-empty]

It should look like this:

fix: add link to searchable list #225 (type: present tense sentence)

We use the conventional config:
https://github.com/materializecss/materialize/blob/main/commitlint.config.js#L2

You can see some examples at https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

[DanielRuf]

@MadhaviMandalia all good with the commit 👍

But you have to create a separate / new branch (please don't use the ?main` branch otherwise this could lead to conflicts), from the current version of our main branch.

I guess you need these commands:

git checkout -b main-temp # create copy of current branch
git branch -D main # delete old main branch
git remote add upstream [email protected]:materializecss/materialize.git # add upstream repo
git checkout main # checkout main of your fork
git merge upstream/main # update your main branch with the upstream one
git checkout -b fix/225-link-icon-list
git add ... & git commit -m '...'
git push -u origin fix/225-link-icon-list
# create new PR

Alternatively recreate your fork, create a new branch from the main branch, do the work there and push + create PR for this then.

[roiLeo]

Why don't we use this link instead?

[DanielRuf]

Why don't we use this link instead?

See #225 (comment)

[DanielRuf]

cc @ChildishGiant