JDK-8325874: Improve checkbox-based interface in summary pages

[hns]

Please review a change to improve the user experience and implementation for the checkbox-based interface to selectively display content on API summary pages:

• Add a checkbox to toggle (select/unselect) all checkboxes in the page.
• Remove the Table.setAlwaysShowDefaultTab(boolean) setter as it is redundant and can be replaced by !renderTabs.
• Consolidate the code to generate checkboxes into a new protected SummaryListWriter.getCheckbox method.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8325874: Improve checkbox-based interface in summary pages (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Pavel Rappo (@pavelrappo - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to cb37764d

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/18194/head:pull/18194
$ git checkout pull/18194

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/18194
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/18194/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 18194

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 18194

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18194.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back hannesw! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@hns The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• javadoc

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (d7460e8d)
• 00: Full (cb37764d)

[pavelrappo]

It'd work for a few more years, but it doesn't scale well. On the other hand, it is very simple:

Nit: if you check "all" and then uncheck something else, then "all" will remain selected. That is a confusing state.

I'll have a look at the code change a bit later. Thanks.

[pavelrappo]

Looks okay.

[openjdk]

@hns This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8325874: Improve checkbox-based interface in summary pages

Reviewed-by: prappo

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 131 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 4d64467: 8328079: JDK-8326583 broke ccache compilation
• 7e05a70: 8251330: Reorder CDS archived heap to speed up relocation
• 7d8561d: 8327109: Refactor data graph cloning used in create_new_if_for_predicate() into separate class
• a4a5196: 8327872: Convert javax/swing/JToolTip/4644444/bug4644444.java applet test to main
• da4dd7c: 8327989: java/net/httpclient/ManyRequest.java should not use "localhost" in URIs
• 49d8008: 8327452: G1: Improve scalability of Merge Log Buffers
• 0ae4fa7: 8327210: AIX: Delete obsolete parameter Use64KPagesThreshold
• 107cb53: 8327701: Remove the xlc toolchain
• 07acc0b: 8326385: [aarch64] C2: lightweight locking nodes kill the box register without specifying this effect
• cc9a8ab: 8327460: Compile tests with the same visibility rules as product code
• ... and 121 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/e889b460c03b3887ec5477fa734c430d3c3a41c8...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[hns]

if you check "all" and then uncheck something else, then "all" will remain selected. That is a confusing state.

I agree, but I think the behavior of the checkbox is as it should be, and it's the label that is slightly misleading. The intended behavior of the checkbox is set all other checkboxes to a unified state which can be either "on" or "off", not to reflect the state of other checkboxes.

So maybe the correct label would be "toggle all" rather than just "all". Admittedly I have used the shorter "all" label to limit the length of the already long line of checkboxes. Do you think using "toggle all" as label would make things better?

[pavelrappo]

if you check "all" and then uncheck something else, then "all" will remain selected. That is a confusing state.

I agree, but I think the behavior of the checkbox is as it should be, and it's the label that is slightly misleading. The intended behavior of the checkbox is set all other checkboxes to a unified state which can be either "on" or "off", not to reflect the state of other checkboxes.

So maybe the correct label would be "toggle all" rather than just "all". Admittedly I have used the shorter "all" label to limit the length of the already long line of checkboxes. Do you think using "toggle all" as label would make things better?

No, I don't think that "toggle all" would be better. It's the checkbox that slightly bothers me, not that checkbox's label.

One minimalistic, consistent approach that comes to mind is a stateless button that inverts selection. But admittedly, your suggestion is already implemented and is less nerdy. Don't bother changing it; it is a nit.

[hns]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 0353245.
Since your change was applied there have been 131 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 4d64467: 8328079: JDK-8326583 broke ccache compilation
• 7e05a70: 8251330: Reorder CDS archived heap to speed up relocation
• 7d8561d: 8327109: Refactor data graph cloning used in create_new_if_for_predicate() into separate class
• a4a5196: 8327872: Convert javax/swing/JToolTip/4644444/bug4644444.java applet test to main
• da4dd7c: 8327989: java/net/httpclient/ManyRequest.java should not use "localhost" in URIs
• 49d8008: 8327452: G1: Improve scalability of Merge Log Buffers
• 0ae4fa7: 8327210: AIX: Delete obsolete parameter Use64KPagesThreshold
• 107cb53: 8327701: Remove the xlc toolchain
• 07acc0b: 8326385: [aarch64] C2: lightweight locking nodes kill the box register without specifying this effect
• cc9a8ab: 8327460: Compile tests with the same visibility rules as product code
• ... and 121 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/e889b460c03b3887ec5477fa734c430d3c3a41c8...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@hns Pushed as commit 0353245.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.