🦋 Update Account > Users table

[josemigallas]

THREESCALE-9873: Account Settings > Users > Listing:

• THREESCALE-9875: Add a toolbar to the table

Before:

After:

[mayorova]

The sorting feature has some issues... I didn't dig for why, so just listing the errors:

1. The first column is titled "Name", but sorting apparently happens on the username column.
2. When trying to put some other colum in the "sort" query arg (e.g. name), it fails with
   
3. When trying to put something random in the direction query param, it fails with another error:
   

So, it looks as if those query params are being passed to ActiveRecord directly?..
The same thing doesn't happen on some other pages (e.g. Accounts listing).

[mayorova]

By the way, the trash icon doesn't match some existing ones, but I guess that's fine, because the other pages are probably using something obsolete...

[josemigallas]

TL;DR: I'm reverting the sorting feature of this page, it wasn't there in the first place (nobody asked for it) and it turns to be too time-consuming.

It can always be added later.

The sorting feature has some issues... I didn't dig for why, so just listing the errors:

1. The first column is titled "Name", but sorting apparently happens on the username column.

Yes, that's on purpose. The "name" comes from a decorator method that returns "first_name + last_name OR username". Sorting by this method means all records will be loaded into memory and it's not good.

2. When trying to put some other colum in the "sort" query arg (e.g. name), it fails with
   [...]
3. When trying to put something random in the direction query param, it fails with another error:
   [...]

So, it looks as if those query params are being passed to ActiveRecord directly?.. The same thing doesn't happen on some other pages (e.g. Accounts listing).

That's how it's supposed to work. In Accounts listing, sorting is not implemented properly (due an early version of me not understanding the differences between order and sort_by.

The user is not supposed to modify the URL manually. You can also try passing per_page and page params and it will "break" the tables. As long as this is purely visual (Rails will take care of any vulnerabilities) I don't think it's worth the effort of validating this kind stuff.

[mayorova]

That's how it's supposed to work. In Accounts listing, sorting is not implemented properly (due an early version of me not understanding the differences between order and sort_by.

The user is not supposed to modify the URL manually. You can also try passing per_page and page params and it will "break" the tables. As long as this is purely visual (Rails will take care of any vulnerabilities) I don't think it's worth the effort of validating this kind stuff.

Well, I have to disagree with this. If Rails protects from "breaking" the DB if the user puts some invalid stuff in the URL - OK, that's something. But I think it's not good. If an incorrect user input results in a 500 error (and a reported exception) - it's bad UX, IMO. The user for example can copy-paste the URL to another tab (and miss or add some characters accidentally in the process), and receiving an Internal Server Error because of this is not nice.

[josemigallas]

That's how it's supposed to work. In Accounts listing, sorting is not implemented properly (due an early version of me not understanding the differences between order and sort_by.
The user is not supposed to modify the URL manually. You can also try passing per_page and page params and it will "break" the tables. As long as this is purely visual (Rails will take care of any vulnerabilities) I don't think it's worth the effort of validating this kind stuff.

Well, I have to disagree with this. If Rails protects from "breaking" the DB if the user puts some invalid stuff in the URL - OK, that's something. But I think it's not good. If an incorrect user input results in a 500 error (and a reported exception) - it's bad UX, IMO. The user for example can copy-paste the URL to another tab (and miss or add some characters accidentally in the process), and receiving an Internal Server Error because of this is not nice.

It's no ideal, it's just a compromise. A user can also tamper with the DOM, remove disabled buttons, submit forms with missing fields, etc. And in most cases it will break the page (because rails or formtastic or whatever framework doesn't take care of that). AFAIK the URL is out of the scope of UX per se, and frontend development don't "have to" take care of that. It's the UI and it's elements what offers and limits the functionality.

But I agree with you, it's not good and it shouldn't happen. But it's how rails work and validating url param manually isn't good either.

The best solution right now: don't add sorting columns! 😄