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
Improve Save configuration UI - (re)allow for directly specifying custom path #1728
Conversation
I'll have a look at this after the easter break :) |
Okay I run through this a bit, some thoughts:
|
Thanks for the feedback! I made this PR based on widely-used Usability Hueristics from the Nielson Norman group, so I'll respond to each point referencing my train of thought.
This was an attempt towards 6 Recognition Over Recall. The previous design was entirely recall based, and tab completion helps a little bit, but the pre-computed menu was an attempt to visually display your available options. Even if you could tab-complete to the same options, proactively displaying them for the user reduces the cognitive load of recalling the directory structure. If both you and @Torxed still disagree, that's okay with me, and the most recent commit removes the pre-computed menu. However, if you change your mind I'd love to add it back!
If we choose to add the pre-computed menu back in, we can open back up /opt and /var. I don't have much experience with ISOs, which is why I asked in the original PR for feedback on the excluded directories. Are there any others you would want to be included that were being excluded?
The final confirmation aligns with a few usability concerns. First, 5 Error prevention, and 9 Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors. The confirmation makes it easy to visually verify you chose the right directory. Additionally, it addresses 1 Visibility of system status, which includes providing prompt and frequent feedback. The confirmation menu serves as sort of a "confirmation" that your file is being saved. Without it, you just press enter and it returns to the main menu, without necessarily confirming or denying where or if the file was saved. We could add a small temporary message indicating the file was saved, but that would have the same amount of friction as a confirmation menu, and then there would be an open question of how long to display the temp message.
Fixed |
I also think I'll have to tweak a few things once @svartkanin big PyParted PR gets merged, so I'll sit on that |
Having disk errors with new merged changes, so can't test the configuration save - will wait to adjust until I can get it up and testing. |
@bd-g are you getting the same disk error described here #1604 (comment)? If so would you mind testing the pull request #1754 and seeing if it resolves the issue and report back? I do not have the hardware needed to test and reproduce the the issue and would appreciate your assistance. Thanks! |
That wasn't the exact error I was getting that I referenced above. However, I do have a different piece of hardware that has partitions in the /dev/nvmen* style. I'm busy today but I can try to replicate the error on that laptop tomorrow, and then if I can replicate it, test your PR. |
That would be awesome. If you provide more details on the error you are getting I will look into it. Having it documented with an issue would help if that is something you are willing to do when you have the time. |
Of course - I just haven't had the time to replicate the error several times and gather all the diagnostic info that is good for an issue, I was planning on opening an issue once I had the time to fully flesh it out |
@bd-g I'm getting this error quite regularly as well
which means if this fails, then the user won't get any options at all |
I'll look into it. I'm having to redo it too to fix some of the overwrites from the other PR. I'll try to get it done tomorrow? I can also have it fail quietly potentially and just revert, instead of crashing the whole process. |
@bd-g would you be able to update the PR so we can get this in? |
Yea I can work on this. |
@svartkanin It looks like my previous code worked with just one small change to fix the type of an argument. I tested it through a few times and it seemed to work well - should be ready to merge in based on @Torxed opinion. It allows for tab completion to any path, handles |
@Torxed shall we merge this as it resolves some annoying bug in the save configuration bug. I tested the PR and it works as expected |
I resolved a merge conflict, please take a look and see if I got the changes right :) |
Seems fine - the upstream changes just deleted the file, so the merge looks like it just brought the changes back in. And yea, I had removed the SysCommand import too originally, but forgot to remove it the second time when upstreaming some other changes last week. Thanks, great catch! |
Sweet, there were some other minor tweaks like Great work btw, and thanks for taking a second look after i poked around in the code ^^ |
This addresses the discussion in #1659
PR Description:
Allows for either giving the user options of directories to save their files, but still allows them to type their own custom path if they'd like (now with tab completion). @svartkanin thoughts? There is some duplication here, but it does make it a little easier if you don't already have a path in mind.
Tests and Checks