fix: Use OR and strict equality in js/main.js

[grumi54]

Description

The branch that sets scrollBuffer = 0 could never run: it required pathname === "/" and pathname.includes("/programs") simultaneously—mutually exclusive. This caused header-shadow never to activate with zero buffer on home or programs pages. Updated to use OR and strict equality.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for mesheryio-preview ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	a984d4c
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/mesheryio-preview/deploys/68d3892a3e09d00008ad7635
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2347--mesheryio-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @grumi54, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves a bug that prevented the scrollBuffer from being correctly initialized to zero on specific pages, namely the home page and program-related pages. The issue stemmed from an incorrect logical operator (&& instead of ||) and loose equality (== instead of ===) in the conditional statement that determined the scrollBuffer value. By updating this logic, the PR ensures the intended UI behavior, such as the header shadow activation, functions as expected across these critical pages.

Highlights

• Bug Fix: Corrected a logical error in js/main.js where the scrollBuffer was not being set to 0 for the home page (/) or program pages (/programs).
• Conditional Logic Update: The conditional statement window.location.pathname == "/" && window.location.pathname.includes("/programs") was updated to use the logical OR operator (||) and strict equality (===) for the root path check, resolving the mutually exclusive condition.
• Header Shadow Activation: This fix ensures that the header shadow now correctly activates with zero buffer on the home and program pages, as originally intended.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a logical bug where two mutually exclusive conditions were combined with an AND operator, preventing the code block from ever executing. The change to use an OR operator and strict equality is a good improvement. I've added one suggestion to further modernize the code for better readability and maintainability.

[gemini-code-assist]

While the logical fix is correct, this block can be modernized for better readability and to follow current best practices:

1. Use let instead of var for block-scoped variables that are reassigned.
2. Store window.location.pathname in a const to avoid repeating the property access. This makes the if condition cleaner and easier to read.

    const { pathname } = window.location;
    let scrollBuffer = 50;

    if (pathname === "/" || pathname.includes("/programs")) {
      scrollBuffer = 0;
    }

[leecalcote]

Thank you, @grumi54.

@grumi54 @saurabhraghuvanshii, have we confirmed that the OR, not AND has no ill-effects on any other pages in which users visiting with a trailing forward slash?