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

feat(FieldFormatters): add visual editor #5075

Open
wants to merge 27 commits into
base: production
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

maxpatiiuk
Copy link
Member

@maxpatiiuk maxpatiiuk commented Jul 7, 2024

Fixing an issue from 2012 😊

Fixes #23

Screenshot 2024-07-06 at 17 18 46

Checklist

  • Self-review the PR after opening it to make sure the changes look good
    and self-explanatory (or properly documented)
  • Add automated tests
  • Add relevant issue to release milestone

Testing instructions

Generally visual editor for Field Formatters should act and look very similar to the one for Record formatters since it shares a lot of code with it.

To test:

  • Verify that each field formatter type (constant, any character, ...) can be set in the UI, without user-experience issues, and after saving, can be read back correctly
  • Verify that a formatter created/edited using a visual editor works in Specify 7 and Specify 6 (in forms and query results)
  • P.S: don't try to enter an emoji character like on the screenshot above - Specify 7 back-end does not support emojis in app resources 😢

Documentation on field formatters

@maxpatiiuk maxpatiiuk added this to the 7.9.7 milestone Jul 7, 2024
@maxpatiiuk maxpatiiuk self-assigned this Jul 7, 2024
Comment on lines +75 to +72
if (mapping !== undefined && mapping?.length > 1)
softError('Expected mapping length to be no more than 1');
const field = mapping?.[0];
if (field?.isRelationship === true) {
softError(
'Did not expect relationship field in field formatter mapping'
);
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

these cases should not happen - the UI doesn't allow them. but handling them here just in case (and to satisfy TypeScript)

@maxpatiiuk maxpatiiuk requested review from grantfitzsimmons, acwhite211 and a team July 7, 2024 00:56
@maxpatiiuk maxpatiiuk removed this from the 7.9.7 milestone Jul 7, 2024
@realVinayak realVinayak requested a review from a team July 7, 2024 02:28
@grantfitzsimmons
Copy link
Member

❤️

Copy link
Member

@grantfitzsimmons grantfitzsimmons left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. When creating a field format like GiftNumber using the regular expression /^(KUI|KUBI|NHM)$/, I am unable to set it up correctly.

See that I am supposed to put the 'hint' on the left and 'pattern' on the right:
image

image

This works as expected when using a regex validator, but when setting it as the pattern it is not recognized properly.

	<format system="true" name="GiftNumber" class="edu.ku.brc.specify.datamodel.Gift" fieldname="giftNumber" title="" default="true">
		<autonumber>edu.ku.brc.af.core.db.AutoNumberGeneric</autonumber>
		<field type="regex" size="4" value="/^(KUI|KUBI|NHM)$/" byyear="true" pattern="KUBI"/>
	</format>

  1. After modifying other sections of the format, those changes are not made immediately visible for the 'Example Field'. Instead, it uses the previous field format before the edits have been made.

See that it shows "Required Format: KUBI" in the tooltip:

image

(This tooltip is most often obscured by the browser's "match the requested formatter" error)
https://github.com/specify/specify7/assets/37256050/d34bcb16-85d5-43fc-8c68-56bef2e36cc6

After making it simply numeric:

image
  1. What does the 'Auto Numbering' do that the 'Auto-number' checkbox does not?

image

@maxpatiiuk
Copy link
Member Author

maxpatiiuk commented Jul 13, 2024

When creating a field format like GiftNumber using the regular expression /^(KUI|KUBI|NHM)$/, I am unable to set it up correctly.

Looks like the expected regex between Sp6 and Sp7 differed.
In Specify 6, the regex is run on each field part separately, so /^ and $/ are necessary
In Specify 7, all regexes are joined together into on regex, thus, having /^ or $/ will break things if there is more than one part in your formatter.

Fixed:

  • When reading from .xml, both Specify 7 front-end and back-end will trim any /^ or $/ from the regex pattern to not break the pattern when multiple parts are joined together. Similarly, outer ( and ) are removed if present
  • When front-end saves the updated .xml, the syncers will make sure to add /^ and $/, even if not originally specified by the user. Also, if the pattern includes |, leading ( and trailing ) will be added

In practice, that means:

  • When using the visual field format editor, it doesn't matter anymore if you put or not put /^ and $/ in a regex field as the value will be normalized automatically
  • Backwards compatibility with Specify 6

@maxpatiiuk
Copy link
Member Author

See that I am supposed to put the 'hint' on the left and 'pattern' on the right:

yeah, it's not ideal that 'hint' comes before the 'pattern' as the opposite order seems more intuitive.

The reason I did it this way is because of the column heading.
For all other part types, the 'hint' column is used both for declaring what the format should be, and for proving the validation message
For regex parts, since regex is not "user friendly" enough to put into a regex message, the 'hint' field is used only for validation messages, and the regex pattern itself is a separate field (which also validates that the regex pattern has correct syntax)

Open to ideas on how to make this more intuitive

@maxpatiiuk
Copy link
Member Author

After modifying other sections of the format, those changes are not made immediately visible for the 'Example Field'. Instead, it uses the previous field format before the edits have been made.

Fixed

@maxpatiiuk
Copy link
Member Author

What does the 'Auto Numbering' do that the 'Auto-number' checkbox does not?

Ups, the "Auto Numbering" checkbox at the top is not supposed to be exposed in the UI - removed
(it corresponds to whether .xml had a tag like <autonumber>edu.ku.brc.specify.dbsupport.CollectionAutoNumber</autonumber>, which is an sp6-only construct - sp7 cares about it only in so far as creating sp6-compatiable field formatters)

@maxpatiiuk maxpatiiuk requested review from a team and removed request for acwhite211 July 13, 2024 15:45
@maxpatiiuk maxpatiiuk requested review from grantfitzsimmons and a team July 13, 2024 15:46
@grantfitzsimmons
Copy link
Member

@maxpatiiuk Can you resolve the merge conflicts?

Copy link
Collaborator

@lexiclevenger lexiclevenger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Testing instructions

Generally visual editor for Field Formatters should act and look very similar to the one for Record formatters since it shares a lot of code with it.

To test:

  • Verify that each field formatter type (constant, any character, ...) can be set in the UI, without user-experience issues, and after saving, can be read back correctly
  • Verify that a formatter created/edited using a visual editor works in Specify 7 and Specify 6 (in forms and query results)
  • P.S: don't try to enter an emoji character like on the screenshot above - Specify 7 back-end does not support emojis in app resources 😢

Super exciting! I have a few recommendations:

  1. If no default formatter is selected, the message says "record formatter. I would change this to "field formatter"
Screenshot 2024-07-19 at 1 39 31 PM
  1. The default for the "size" field for most field types is 0, and this can be saved as long as there is a value in the "hint" field. The value will be shown in the formatter, but it will make the format invalid if that value is entered in the field. In the Specify 6 field formatter, the "size" value cannot go below 1; I think adding this in 7 would be a good solution.
Screenshot 2024-07-19 at 1 42 45 PM
  1. The user can input and save any value at any length in the "hint" field (see screenshot above) for the numeric field type, but this is misleading because "#" is the only character that actually works, and it will only appear as many times as the value in the "size" field. Maybe this field could be read-only since it's not really functional.

I'd like to hear what others have to say about 2 and 3; they don't conflict with the xml editor, and the "Example field" displays their consequences correctly, but I think these solutions would make the visual editor more user-friendly.

@lexiclevenger lexiclevenger requested a review from a team July 19, 2024 19:42
@maxpatiiuk
Copy link
Member Author

maxpatiiuk commented Jul 21, 2024

If no default formatter is selected, the message says "record formatter. I would change this to "field formatter"

Good point. To have the same message be applicable both in the field formatters editor and record formatters editor, I edited it to say:

"Please designate one of the formatters as default"

The default for the "size" field for most field types is 0, and this can be saved as long as there is a value in the "hint" field. The value will be shown in the formatter, but it will make the format invalid if that value is entered in the field. In the Specify 6 field formatter, the "size" value cannot go below 1; I think adding this in 7 would be a good solution.

Made "size" value not go below 1

The user can input and save any value at any length in the "hint" field (see screenshot above) for the numeric field type, but this is misleading because "#" is the only character that actually works, and it will only appear as many times as the value in the "size" field. Maybe this field could be read-only since it's not really functional.

Fixed. "hint" is now readonly for number fields

Copy link
Collaborator

@lexiclevenger lexiclevenger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good! Another thing I noticed is that clicking on the "edit" button next to a format in schema config often takes you to the wrong one.

Schema.Config_.Gift._.Specify.7.-.Google.Chrome.2024-07-23.11-30-30.mp4

https://fwri1924-field-editor.test.specifysystems.org/specify/schema-config/en/Gift/

- Field is ambiguous name
- Field suggests that you can have fields inside of a formatter - you
  can't - you can only have text parts inside a field formatter
Triggered by 06b3c1a on branch refs/heads/field-editor
Triggered by b4736f8 on branch refs/heads/field-editor
Fixes #5075 (review)

I should have known better than to use `useEffect` for this. Moved the
logic to a more appropriate lace.
@maxpatiiuk
Copy link
Member Author

If you shrink the dialog the preview background shrinks but if the value is long enough it extends past the background

Fixed by force-wrapping long values.

It is not a huge deal especially if it is hard to fix but if possible I would like the carrying over to be fixed

Could you clarify what you mean by fixed?
Do you want carrying over to be completely disabled? It is there as feature - if you say it is an anti feature, we can remove it
If by fixed you mean (looking at your example video) the size should revert back to 8 after being truncated to 4 be, the that is possible but a bit tricky.

Triggered by c8acc26 on branch refs/heads/field-editor
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Dev Attention Needed
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add support for customizing field formats
7 participants