Make time interval of datetime / time fields configurable

[Jose4gg]

What does it do?

With this PR It will allow to pass the step for time and datetime fields through [Model].json

Why is it needed?

There's some use cases where we don't need every minute to be an option in datetime/time fields

How to test it?

Adding step inside a datetime/time field of a [Model].json component should allow to override the number of minutes to be displayed in the content-manager.

Related issue(s)/PR(s)

#12175
#5099

[gu-stav]

Thanks for opening the PR. 🚀

While I personally like the idea, I need to verify with the team first, whether we want this information as part of the schema. It will therefore take me a little to review the PR.

[derrickmehaffy]

I think this would be better handled in the ctm "configure the view" and saved to the core store so it can be changed during runtime.

Our general design policy prohibition storing visual changes like this in the schema.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #13597 (be8224f) into main (cd16049) will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 7.69%.

❗ Current head be8224f differs from pull request most recent head 39b8ece. Consider uploading reports for the commit 39b8ece to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #13597      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   55.50%   55.46%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files        1274     1274              
  Lines       31823    31847      +24     
  Branches     5734     5745      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        17662    17664       +2     
- Misses      12349    12364      +15     
- Partials     1812     1819       +7     

Flag	Coverage Δ
front	57.97% <8.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
unit	49.38% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...min/src/content-manager/components/Inputs/index.js	16.66% <0.00%> (-1.61%)	⬇️
...content-manager/components/Inputs/utils/getStep.js	28.57% <ø> (+6.34%)	⬆️
...rver/controllers/validation/model-configuration.js	31.81% <0.00%> (-1.52%)	⬇️
...ns/i18n/admin/src/components/ModalEdit/BaseForm.js	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ger/pages/EditSettingsView/components/ModalForm.js	29.68% <22.22%> (-1.23%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[gu-stav]

We briefly discussed the PR today and would love to merge it, once all comments are resolved. Thank you for working on it - many users will appreciate it!

I've added a few comments and would to hear your opinion. 🚀

Could you please remove all unrelated changes from that PR? It looks like as if your prettier version/ config has some mismatch with what we are using (hence the brace / spacing changes).

Feel free to ping me anytime you need something - back from vacation now.

[Jose4gg]

I did a refactor to get the step from the metadata instead of getting it from the schema @gu-stav

[gu-stav]

@Jose4gg Thank you - I haven't checked it a lot yet, but it looks much cleaner. I'm wondering: does the field show up for you?

[soupette]

@Jose4gg Thank you - I haven't checked it a lot yet, but it looks much cleaner. I'm wondering: does the field show up for you?

@gu-stav if he have added the steps in the metadata you should look into the setting page and not the ctb field configuration modal.

[gu-stav]

@soupette Good catch - thanks. I keep confusing these two views.

[soupette]

@Jose4gg Thank you - I haven't checked it a lot yet, but it looks much cleaner. I'm wondering: does the field show up for you?

@gu-stav if he have added the steps in the metadata you should look into the setting page and not the ctb field configuration modal.

@soupette Good catch - thanks. I keep confusing these two views.

They should be merged into the CTB at some point...
cc/ @maevalienard

[gu-stav]

I've checked the PR again today: great work. I think we can almost merge it (there is a new release on Wednesday). I've added two smaller and one bigger comment and I'm interested what you think about it.

Thank you for still working on this! I know it has been a long time and I apologize for that.

[Jose4gg]

Changes are done @gu-stav

[gu-stav]

Thank you very much. It works like a charm and you did a really good job with the code. 🚀

I've already checked with the documentation team: this change only needs a small addition for now in the user-guide. Therefore I'll remove the documenation label and will create a new PR there.

[gu-stav]

Rebased because the workflows were stuck.

[Coderwelsch]

Thank you so much for your work 🥰🥰🥰

[esiao]

@Jose4gg thank you for this!
@gu-stav Just a heads up, I've noticed that the documentation was updated to include the Step inside of the Content-Type field Advanced Settings (https://docs.strapi.io/user-docs/latest/content-types-builder/configuring-fields-content-type.html#date). I've looked into it and couldn't find it until I found out it's inside of the Configure the View settings and not the field Advanced Settings.

[Jose4gg]

@Coderwelsch @esiao Welcome, happy to contribute! 🙌

[gu-stav]

@esiao Thank you for sharing that insight. I agree it is not ideal - I will talk to the docs team next week to see how we can improve that situation.

[strapi-bot]

This pull request has been mentioned on Strapi Community Forum. There might be relevant details there:

https://forum.strapi.io/t/decrease-the-time-granularity-on-datetime-picker/19769/3