Skip to content
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

JDK-8325874: Improve checkbox-based interface in summary pages #18194

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

hns
Copy link
Member

@hns hns commented Mar 11, 2024

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

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
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Mar 11, 2024

👋 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 openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Mar 11, 2024
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 11, 2024

@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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the javadoc javadoc-dev@openjdk.org label Mar 11, 2024
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Mar 11, 2024

Webrevs

@pavelrappo
Copy link
Member

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

image

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

image

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

Copy link
Member

@pavelrappo pavelrappo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks okay.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 13, 2024

@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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Mar 13, 2024
@hns
Copy link
Member Author

hns commented Mar 13, 2024

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
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member Author

hns commented Mar 13, 2024

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 13, 2024

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 openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Mar 13, 2024
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Mar 13, 2024
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Mar 13, 2024
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 13, 2024

@hns Pushed as commit 0353245.

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
integrated Pull request has been integrated javadoc javadoc-dev@openjdk.org
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants