Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use standard dropdowns for autocomplete #9453

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

zbynek
Copy link
Contributor

@zbynek zbynek commented Jul 11, 2024

Further reduces usage of YUI by switching autocomplete fields to the dropdown component.

Screenshots Before

image

After

image

Testing done

Manual testing with the job trigger for freestyle jobs (see screenshot)

No automated tests -- this could be only covered by UI tests and I'm not sure those would be worth adding/maintaining.

Proposed changelog entries

  • Use dropdown component for autocomplete fields (instead of YUI framework).

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Edit tasklist title
Beta Give feedback Tasklist Submitter checklist, more options

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?
Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.
  1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
    Options
  2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
    Options
  3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
    Options
  4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
    Options
  5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
    Options
  6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
    Options
  7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
    Options
  8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.
    Options
Loading

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Edit tasklist title
Beta Give feedback Tasklist Maintainer checklist, more options

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?
Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.
  1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
    Options
  2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
    Options
  3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
    Options
  4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
    Options
  5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
    Options
  6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).
    Options
Loading

@timja timja added web-ui The PR includes WebUI changes which may need special expertise rfe For changelog: Minor enhancement. use `major-rfe` for changes to be highlighted labels Jul 13, 2024
@timja timja requested review from a team July 13, 2024 11:23
@timja timja added the needs-security-review Awaiting review by a security team member label Jul 13, 2024
Copy link
Member

@timja timja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM worked in testing on a freestyle project and on the design library

@janfaracik
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good to me - any thoughts on making the dropdown full width?

@zbynek
Copy link
Contributor Author

zbynek commented Jul 15, 2024

any thoughts on making the dropdown full width?

I don't have a preference. @timja @NotMyFault WDYT?

image

@timja
Copy link
Member

timja commented Jul 16, 2024

any thoughts on making the dropdown full width?

I don't have a preference. @timja @NotMyFault WDYT?

image

is that after or before?

@zbynek
Copy link
Contributor Author

zbynek commented Jul 16, 2024

The last screenshot is potential after (not implemented), screenshot of the current implementation is in the PR description.

@timja
Copy link
Member

timja commented Jul 16, 2024

Current one is cut-off though so can't really see the impact of the change unless I'm misunderstanding

@zbynek
Copy link
Contributor Author

zbynek commented Jul 16, 2024

Without cutoff:
image
The upside is that with more suggestions the narrow popup covers fewer UI elements, the downside is that validation of partial input may be visible below (as shown in the screenshot in description).

@timja
Copy link
Member

timja commented Jul 16, 2024

Ah I see, I think full width is better but no strong preference

@zbynek
Copy link
Contributor Author

zbynek commented Jul 16, 2024

Full width pushed, this is now ready from my side, thanks for the feedback.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs-security-review Awaiting review by a security team member rfe For changelog: Minor enhancement. use `major-rfe` for changes to be highlighted web-ui The PR includes WebUI changes which may need special expertise
Projects
None yet
4 participants