enhancement: frontend validation for duplicate repo entry in tui (#550)

[abhishek818]

Related to --multi-project command

Pull Request Title

enhancement: frontend validation for duplicate repo entry in tui (#550)

Description

related to --multi-project command

• This change requires a documentation update
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation

Related Issue(s)

This PR addresses issue #550

closes #550
/claim #550

Screenshots

If relevant, please add screenshots.

[abhishek818]

@Tpuljak @idagelic Up for review..

[abhishek818]

if you like the work, do add a tip. It was more time taking than anticipated..

[Tpuljak]

@abhishek818 thanks for tackling this issue. Unfortunately, your solution might not be ideal for users. Your flow breaks the creation flow in the duplication scenario which is not what we want.

I suggest the following:

1. In manual mode - use the input.Validate function to display that the repo is a duplicate (i.e. return an error that will be displayed in the input)
2. In TUI mode - the repo that was already selected should be disabled from selection completely (ideally, if the user were to focus on the repo with arrows, the TUI would automatically skip over that repo)

I'm placing the PR in draft. No need to close it since you will be able to reuse most of the work. Thanks!

[abhishek818]

Your flow breaks the creation flow in the duplication scenario which is not what we want.

@Tpuljak if i understand correctly, my current changes doesnt breaks the flow (true for both manual and TUI modes). It rather allows the users to select a different option and gives a duplicate warning in the title header WITHOUT 'breaking the command and returning a fatal error'. Please correct me if i am missing something..

[abhishek818]

In TUI mode - the repo that was already selected should be disabled from selection completely

yeah, agreed much better way. Will go with this. hey, but should i keep the 'ALREADY SELECTED' tag or not for these options?

[abhishek818]

In manual mode - use the input.Validate function to display that the repo is a duplicate (i.e. return an error that will be displayed in the input)

This is what i am doing currently, what is missing ? Are you talking about not returning error in the title rather throw it in footer or something etc. ?

[abhishek818]

@Tpuljak

[Tpuljak]

if i understand correctly, my current changes doesnt breaks the flow (true for both manual and TUI modes). It rather allows the users to select a different option and gives a duplicate warning in the title header WITHOUT 'breaking the command and returning a fatal error'. Please correct me if i am missing something..

@abhishek818 I didn't mean it breaks the command but it breaks the UX. The user needs to input a repo, select yes/no for more projects and then a new screen opens up.

This is what i am doing currently, what is missing ? Are you talking about not returning error in the title rather throw it in footer or something etc. ?

I'm talking about return the appropriate error from the function. The error should say that the project is a duplicate and that will then be rendered in the input and not allow the user to move forward. Try it and you'll see what I mean.

yeah, agreed much better way. Will go with this. hey, but should i keep the 'ALREADY SELECTED' tag or not for these options?

You can keep the tag but let's make it say "Already selected" instead. Caps lock is a bit too aggressive 😄

P.S. No need to tag me in a separate comment, I get an email for each reply you post 😄

[abhishek818]

@Tpuljak
Fixed everything! Refer the gif below.

1. skip selection/focus view over duplicate repo & git provider options (skips git provider having all repos already selected).
2. doesnt break the command or throws fatal error or any UX.
3. disable 'enter' keypress for disabled options.
4. handle duplicacy over a mix of auto and manual modes (duplicate entry in manual input invoked inside auto mode)

[abhishek818]

You can keep the tag but let's make it say "Already selected" instead. Caps lock is a bit too aggressive 😄

P.S. No need to tag me in a separate comment, I get an email for each reply you post 😄

👍 😅

[Tpuljak]

@abhishek818 nice work on implementing the latest changes! This now feels like a great CLI improvement.

I left 2 comments that should improve this a bit more.

P.S. We recognize the effort that went into this and, of course, a tip will be provided 🙂

[Tpuljak]

@abhishek818 nice work! Everything seems to work great now.

[idagelic]

I tested this out and it looks great! NIce work!

The code is also okay to be merged, I just added a few comments for typos

[Tpuljak]

/tip $10

[algora-pbc]

👉 @Tpuljak: Navigate to your dashboard to proceed

[algora-pbc]

🎉🎈 @abhishek818 has been awarded $10! 🎈🎊

• Share on socials
• Give feedback

[abhishek818]

@Tpuljak do let me know if daytona has any pending issues/features and looking to bounty it..

[Tpuljak]

@abhishek818 thank you for your interest! We definitely plan on putting bounties on more issues so keep an eye out.

[abhishek818]

I feel 50$ at the least would be the overall perfect bounty amount for the effort spent on this one. Would keep me motivated for contributing more..
Anyways this is open source and amount is highly opinionated topic.

[Tpuljak]

@abhishek818 I understand what you're getting at but we feel like the already-provided tip justified the effort needed to complete this issue. You have to understand that the amount of time invested is not something that influences the bounty amount but the objective effort needed to complete it.
We hope that you will continue to contribute to Daytona because we enjoy working with you.