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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[4110] Add layout capabilities for form widgets #4125

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[4110] Add layout capabilities for form widgets #4125

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

lfasani
Copy link
Contributor

@lfasani lfasani commented Oct 23, 2024

Bug: #4110

Pull request template

General purpose

What is the main goal of this pull request?

  • Bug fixes
  • New features
  • Documentation
  • Cleanup
  • Tests
  • Build / releng

Project management

  • Has the pull request been added to the relevant project and milestone? (Only if you know that your work is part of a specific iteration such as the current one)
  • Have the priority: and pr: labels been added to the pull request? (In case of doubt, start with the labels priority: low and pr: to review later)
  • Have the relevant issues been added to the pull request?
  • Have the relevant labels been added to the issues? (area:, difficulty:, type:)
  • Have the relevant issues been added to the same project and milestone as the pull request?
  • Has the CHANGELOG.adoc been updated to reference the relevant issues?
  • Have the relevant API breaks been described in the CHANGELOG.adoc? (Including changes in the GraphQL API)
  • In case of a change with a visual impact, are there any screenshots in the CHANGELOG.adoc? For example in doc/screenshots/2022.5.0-my-new-feature.png

Architectural decision records (ADR)

  • Does the title of the commit contributing the ADR start with [doc]?
  • Are the ADRs mentioned in the relevant section of the CHANGELOG.adoc?

Dependencies

  • Are the new / upgraded dependencies mentioned in the relevant section of the CHANGELOG.adoc?
  • Are the new dependencies justified in the CHANGELOG.adoc?

Frontend

This section is not relevant if your contribution does not come with changes to the frontend.

General purpose

  • Is the code properly tested? (Plain old JavaScript tests for business code and tests based on React Testing Library for the components)

Typing

We need to improve the typing of our code, as such, we require every contribution to come with proper TypeScript typing for both changes contributing new files and those modifying existing files.
Please ensure that the following statements are true for each file created or modified (this may require you to improve code outside of your contribution).

  • Variables have a proper type
  • Functions’ arguments have a proper type
  • Functions’ return type are specified
  • Hooks are properly typed:
    • useMutation<DATA_TYPE, VARIABLE_TYPE>(…)
    • useQuery<DATA_TYPE, VARIABLE_TYPE>(…)
    • useSubscription<DATA_TYPE, VARIABLE_TYPE>(…)
    • useMachine<CONTEXT_TYPE, EVENTS_TYPE>(…)
    • useState<STATE_TYPE>(…)
  • All components have a proper typing for their props
  • No useless optional chaining with ?. (if the GraphQL API specifies that a field cannot be null, do not treat it has potentially null for example)
  • Nullable values have a proper type (for example let diagram: Diagram | null = null;)

Backend

This section is not relevant if your contribution does not come with changes to the backend.

General purpose

  • Are all the event handlers tested?
  • Are the event processor tested?
  • Is the business code (services) tested?
  • Are diagram layout changes tested?

Architecture

  • Are data structure classes properly separated from behavioral classes?
  • Are all the relevant fields final?
  • Is any data structure mutable? If so, please write a comment indicating why
  • Are behavioral classes either stateless or side effect free?

Review

How to test this PR?

Please describe here the various use cases to test this pull request

  • Has the Kiwi TCMS test suite been updated with tests for this contribution?

@lfasani lfasani added this to the 2024.11.0 milestone Oct 23, 2024
@lfasani lfasani self-assigned this Oct 23, 2024
@lfasani lfasani requested a review from frouene October 23, 2024 09:14
frouene
frouene requested changes Oct 29, 2024
View reviewed changes
...ages/forms/frontend/sirius-components-forms/src/propertysections/CheckboxPropertySection.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved
...ages/forms/frontend/sirius-components-forms/src/propertysections/CheckboxPropertySection.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...ages/forms/frontend/sirius-components-forms/src/propertysections/CheckboxPropertySection.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
packages/forms/frontend/sirius-components-forms/src/propertysections/FlexboxHelper.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...g/eclipse/sirius/components/view/builder/generated/form/CheckboxDescriptionStyleBuilder.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...form/src/main/java/org/eclipse/sirius/components/view/form/impl/WidgetFlexboxLayoutImpl.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...nts-view-form/src/main/java/org/eclipse/sirius/components/view/form/WidgetFlexboxLayout.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...n/java/org/eclipse/sirius/components/view/form/provider/WidgetFlexboxLayoutItemProvider.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CHANGELOG.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lfasani lfasani linked an issue Nov 4, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Enhance layout capability on property section #4110
Open
1 task
@frouene frouene force-pushed the lfa/eng/widgetLayout branch 6 times, most recently from 411e956 to a4d2a7b Compare November 8, 2024 16:58
@frouene frouene marked this pull request as ready for review November 8, 2024 16:59
@frouene frouene force-pushed the lfa/eng/widgetLayout branch 7 times, most recently from d6cb4e9 to 2368219 Compare November 12, 2024 14:41
sbegaudeau
sbegaudeau requested changes Nov 13, 2024
View reviewed changes
.../forms/backend/sirius-components-collaborative-forms/src/main/resources/schema/form.graphqls Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...mdescriptioneditors/frontend/sirius-components-formdescriptioneditors/src/CheckboxWidget.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved
...mdescriptioneditors/frontend/sirius-components-formdescriptioneditors/src/TextAreaWidget.tsx
<div className={classes.propertySectionLabel}>
<Typography variant="subtitle2" className={selected ? classes.selected : ''}>
{widget.label}
</Typography>
{widget.hasHelpText ? <HelpOutlineOutlined color="secondary" style={{ marginLeft: 8, fontSize: 16 }} /> : null}
</div>
<TextField
className={classes.propertySectionWidget}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this class on the widget instead of on a containing div (same comment for TextfieldWidget) while it's on a containing div for the SelectWidget?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I added a div only when it was needed that is in the case where it would contain more than one child.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For homogeneity, we could have the same here(even if not necessary)
Tell if you want to add the div anyway

...ius-components-forms/src/main/java/org/eclipse/sirius/components/forms/WidgetGridLayout.java Show resolved Hide resolved
...sirius-components-forms/src/main/java/org/eclipse/sirius/components/forms/DateTimeStyle.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...src/test/java/org/eclipse/sirius/web/services/forms/FormWithTextareaDescriptionProvider.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...rc/test/java/org/eclipse/sirius/web/services/forms/FormWithTextfieldDescriptionProvider.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
...form-edit/src/main/java/org/eclipse/sirius/components/view/form/provider/FormEditPlugin.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
packages/view/backend/sirius-components-view-form-edit/src/main/resources/plugin.properties Outdated
@@ -10,248 +10,251 @@
# Contributors:
# Obeo - initial API and implementation
#################################################################################
pluginName = Form Edit Support
providerName = www.example.org
pluginName=Form Edit Support
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No need to change all those lines

Copy link
Contributor Author

@lfasani lfasani Nov 14, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same remark. I took the result of the EMF generation. I should not have to process it manually afterwards.
How to have the right dev environnement?

packages/forms/frontend/sirius-components-forms/src/propertysections/PropertySection.types.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lfasani lfasani force-pushed the lfa/eng/widgetLayout branch 3 times, most recently from dd47b3d to 0a99898 Compare November 14, 2024 16:22
@lfasani @frouene
[4110] Add layout capabilities for form widgets
0448726 
Bug: #4110
Signed-off-by: Laurent Fasani <laurent.fasani@obeo.fr>
Signed-off-by: Florian ROUËNÉ <florian.rouene@obeosoft.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@frouene frouene frouene requested changes

@sbegaudeau sbegaudeau sbegaudeau requested changes

@pcdavid pcdavid Awaiting requested review from pcdavid pcdavid is a code owner

@AxelRICHARD AxelRICHARD Awaiting requested review from AxelRICHARD AxelRICHARD is a code owner

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@lfasani lfasani

Labels
pr: to review soon priority: high
Projects
None yet
Milestone
2024.11.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Enhance layout capability on property section
3 participants
@lfasani @sbegaudeau @frouene