Feature request: optional treestyle checkboxes to exclude/include files.

[jadedgnome]

sometimes writing multiples filenames to exclude is tedious and it would be much easier to select multiple files wit ha mouse click.

[cyclotruc]

That's a good idea
Does that look what you have in mind?

[jadedgnome]

yes, pretty much!
note, i'm not opposed to the use of manually specifying files either or looking for it as a replacement, in fact i think it would be cool if the url supported parameters for excluding files.

[DavidUlloa6310]

Was this pushed already? I was thinking design wise, it would be cool to have files that are excluded to have a "strickthrough" text effect instead of a checkbox. It would go well with the existing design and I'd be happy to help in the implementation.

[cyclotruc]

hi @DavidUlloa6310

Actually this has not been worked on until now and your help is very welcome if you want to take a stab at it

I like this idea of strikethrough to show excluded files, we would just have to think about if those should be included in the pastable digest, and there's also a tricky question: do we want the content of the textfields to differ from what the digest actually is

My point is:
What's covenient with the current setup is that "what you see is what you get"
So that means when you click "copy" you get the exact same content than if you selected the whole text zone and copied yourself

I'm willing to "cheat" a bit for UX purposes, but to which extent I'm not sure yet

Given the current website architecture, I think this feature should be implemented like this:

• When the user hovers on a filename, we hint them that they can click to exclude the file
• When the file is excluded, it's actually just added to the "exclude pattern" field
• Users needs to click the ingest button again to apply those changes

It's not ideal but it's the simplest implementation I can think of given the current architecture
(the reason is: currently when people click ingest, it sends a POST request, and the response to that post is the whole HTML of the page filled with the content of the digest)

Of course, once this feature is implemented that way, we can gather feedback to rework it once we get to improve the current website architecture (basically once the API is ready and stable, we'll be able to redo all the front-end to not reload the whole HTML everytime, which will open many possibilities)

[DavidUlloa6310]

Gotcha, I think that's the cleanest solution. The UX is still there and it keeps the whole feature simple. I'll go ahead and give it a shot - feel free to assign the issue to me

[cyclotruc]

Thank you very much!
Feel free to reach out to me (find me in the discord server) if you have any question while doing so!