<div>Heya Samuel. Unfortunately, the obfuscated css selectors are a deep part of our styling pipelines that are there to avoid unintended styling consequences of similar human curated class names. Classic example of this is a `.container` might be used within another `.container`, but have entirely different contexts/styles. With the obfuscation each is interpreted differently on the frontend, guaranteeing they don't interfere with each other.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Turning the obfuscation off would be a significant effort on our end, and would lead to unintended bugs for our customers. I 100% understand the pain of not being able to have css selectors to bind to (I've tried to do similar things to what you've done in the past and hit the same frustrating wall), but it does guarantee that we don't have unintended css styles being shared between unrelated components. </div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>To the piecemeal IDs and selectors that you mention, we thought of doing something like this in the past before the dark mode efforts originally started. The downside to this is it creates an unofficial API that people bind to and rely on. It ends up creating tech debt for our teams and would be something that would eventually break. In our early reviews we decided against doing something like this due to the extra overhead and lack of future support.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>dj boy selector non-stop mp3 download 2022</div><div></div><div>Download:
https://t.co/deh0izPviw </div><div></div><div></div><div>What if we name prepend those IDs with "temp" like so: `#temp-attach-btn` and `#temp-create-subtask-btn`. Or even easier `.temp-class-action-btn` because all action buttons have to have the same color anyway. That makes it very clear that this selector is temporary and not to something they can expect to hold on to create an unofficial API. It's not your responsibility.</div><div></div><div> df19127ead</div>