fix: patch help_improve bug

[a7m-1st]

Related Issue

Closes #1454

Description

• for now only looks for specific fields before checking:

const REQUIRED_FIELDS = [
  'take_screenshot',
  'access_local_software',
  'access_your_address',
  'password_storage',
];

Testing Evidence (REQUIRED)

• I have included human-verified testing evidence in this PR.
• This PR includes frontend/UI changes, and I attached screenshot(s) or screen recording(s).
• No frontend/UI changes in this PR.

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Bug fix
• New Feature
• Documentation update
• Other

Contribution Guidelines Acknowledgement

• I have read and agree to the Eigent Contribution Guideline

[eureka0928]

Thanks for the fix! The core logic change (checking only the 4 required fields instead of all response keys) is correct and solves the immediate bug.

A few observations:

1. Root cause is on the backend
The real issue is that GET /api/user/privacy returns the raw pricacy_setting JSON column (server/app/controller/user/user_controller.py:80), which leaks any extra key ever written to it. If the backend filtered through UserPrivacySettings:

return UserPrivacySettings(**model.pricacy_setting).model_dump()

then unknown fields like help_improve would be stripped at the source, and the original frontend code would work fine. Worth considering a backend-side fix too — the frontend fix alone means any future field added to the stored JSON could re-introduce this bug.

2. Hardcoded field list is fragile
If the UserPrivacySettings model gains a new required field later, someone needs to remember to update this frontend list too. Consider either:

• Fixing on the backend (preferred, see above)
• Or at minimum, adding a comment linking to the backend model so future devs know to keep them in sync

3. Tailwind class reordering adds review noise
The diff has ~15 lines of pure Tailwind class reordering (alphabetizing). While cosmetically fine, mixing formatting changes with a bug fix makes the PR harder to review and increases merge conflict risk with other open branches. Ideally these would be in a separate commit or PR.

Overall the approach is sound — just needs the formatting noise separated and testing evidence added. The backend-side fix would be the more robust long-term solution.

[Wendong-Fan]

thanks @a7m-1st , based on @eureka928 's comment, added enhance PR #1456, feel free to check