Refine content and appearance of the 'Edit View' screen

[janfaracik]

This pull request updates the content and minor styling of the 'Edit view' screen.

What's changed

• Page title added
• Breadcrumb content aligned with title
• Descriptions added to sections and fields
• Sections reordered
• Recursive jobs are now inset

Screenshots

Before

After

Before with recursive jobs enabled

After with recursive jobs enabled

Testing done

• Works as before

Proposed changelog entries

• Refine content and appearance of the 'Edit View' screen

Proposed changelog entries for developers

• <f:checkbox /> now supports a description parameter for setting a description on the checkbox

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[janfaracik]

/label web-ui,rfe

/reviewer @jenkinsci/sig-ux

[daniel-beck]

Nesting of jobs for the filter looks wrong once it's more than one level, like a tree widget (e.g., Windows Explorer) that only supports a single level. Is this intentional? It's unclear why, to indicate that these entries only exist because of the checkbox?

Before

After

[janfaracik]

Nesting of jobs for the filter looks wrong once it's more than one level, like a tree widget (e.g., Windows Explorer) that only supports a single level. Is this intentional? It's unclear why, to indicate that these entries only exist because of the checkbox?

Ah good spot, I hadn't considered that. I've updated it so that children of children now nest correctly, I've also updated their labelling so that they don't repeat their parent's name.

Before

After

[github-actions]

Please take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request. Thanks!

[timja]

LGTM, I tested with nested folders and all is good:

[timja]

/label ready-for-merge

---

This PR is now ready for merge, after ~24 hours, we will merge it if there's no negative feedback.

Thanks!