Limit selectors in .card-group to immediate children to fix border-radius bug

[mscdex]

Description

This fixes an issue where borders are not rounded for cards nested within a card in a card group.

Motivation & Context

This fixes an issue where borders are not rounded for cards nested within a card in a card group.

Type of changes

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

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guidelines
• My code follows the code style of the project (using npm run lint)
• My change introduces changes to the documentation
• I have updated the documentation accordingly
• I have added tests to cover my changes
• All new and existing tests passed

Live previews

Related issues

---

I have no idea if this would be considered a breaking change or not. Personally I can't imagine someone relying on the previous greedy selector behavior, but anything is possible I suppose.

[mdo]

What does this fix, is there a demo of a bug or an associated issue?

[mscdex]

Here's a demo: https://jsfiddle.net/1r7mjdzb/1/

If you look at the "Nested Card 1" header, the upper-right border is not rounded as expected. Similarly, if you look at the "Nested Card 2" header, the upper-left border is not rounded as expected.

It's the same deal for the respective footers but the lower-right and lower-left borders respectively.

[mdo]

Thanks! Yeah I don't think I anticipated folks nesting cards like this, but I should always expect the unexpected with Bootstrap at this point lol. That makes sense and hopefully won't be a huge issue for others.\

/cc @julien-deramond for thoughts

[julien-deramond]

/cc @julien-deramond for thoughts

I've experimented with various card combinations from our documentation, mirroring the approach used in the JSFiddle, and haven't encountered any similar problems nor observed any regressions.

I have no idea if this would be considered a breaking change or not. Personally I can't imagine someone relying on the previous greedy selector behavior, but anything is possible I suppose.

It's always tricky to determine what constitutes a breaking change. We're trying to assess how many users might be affected to decide whether it should be included as a patch, minor, or major release. In this case, as you mentioned, I can't imagine anyone relying on the previous selector behavior. Therefore, I'd vote for a simple patch that could be incorporated into v5.3.6.