✨ Add app name filter to archetypes page & drawer link

[ibolton336]

There was a suggestion to update the drawer chips to a link since as the list of chips grows, it will not be sustainable to show all chips in drawer. The change here moves to a pre-filter for the archetypes category in the applications table which is linkable from the archetype drawer.
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MTA-2283

[sjd78]

On the PR description,

• What part of 0.3.1 priorities #1672 is this PR addressing?
• Can you add a short caption for the screen shots or add an arrow to show what has changed? Relying on my memory of how something currently looks, or trying to run the app to that point with similar data, to decipher the new screenshot is rough to my less-than-ideally-caffeinated brain.

All of the code changes look ok. Really my apprehension is with swapping out a list of archetypes for a single link. Feels like a loss of information in the details drawer.

[sjd78]

Having the key and the value for the selectOptions be the same is currently annoying me for no good reason. I mean as long as the key value matches up with what is returned from getItemValue() all is well.

[ibolton336]

On the PR description,

• What part of 0.3.1 priorities #1672 is this PR addressing?
• Can you add a short caption for the screen shots or add an arrow to show what has changed? Relying on my memory of how something currently looks, or trying to run the app to that point with similar data, to decipher the new screenshot is rough to my less-than-ideally-caffeinated brain.

Updated description. Sorry about that!

All of the code changes look ok. Really my apprehension is with swapping out a list of archetypes for a single link. Feels like a loss of information in the details drawer.

The concern with the chips in drawer was scalability. Maybe we can find a happy medium to keep some sort of chip list / detail in drawer along with the link.

[sjd78]

All of the code changes look ok. Really my apprehension is with swapping out a list of archetypes for a single link. Feels like a loss of information in the details drawer.

The concern with the chips in drawer was scalability. Maybe we can find a happy medium to keep some sort of chip list / detail in drawer along with the link.

Sticking with using labels to display the archetypes, this looks promising: https://www.patternfly.org/components/label#label-group-with-overflow

[ibolton336]

All of the code changes look ok. Really my apprehension is with swapping out a list of archetypes for a single link. Feels like a loss of information in the details drawer.

The concern with the chips in drawer was scalability. Maybe we can find a happy medium to keep some sort of chip list / detail in drawer along with the link.

Sticking with using labels to display the archetypes, this looks promising: https://www.patternfly.org/components/label#label-group-with-overflow

@JustinXHale Looking for input here. I think it was Ramon who requested the link instead of chips here since there may be 100s of tags. Even with the overflow, that might be asking too much of our side drawer to render all of those chips in a readable manner.

[JustinXHale]

All of the code changes look ok. Really my apprehension is with swapping out a list of archetypes for a single link. Feels like a loss of information in the details drawer.

The concern with the chips in drawer was scalability. Maybe we can find a happy medium to keep some sort of chip list / detail in drawer along with the link.

Sticking with using labels to display the archetypes, this looks promising: https://www.patternfly.org/components/label#label-group-with-overflow

@JustinXHale Looking for input here. I think it was Ramon who requested the link instead of chips here since there may be 100s of tags. Even with the overflow, that might be asking too much of our side drawer to render all of those chips in a readable manner.

Give me a couple days to look into this. I need to pay with some designs and see how we can take scalability into account when there can be a 100 tags

[sjd78]

@JustinXHale Looking for input here. I think it was Ramon who requested the link instead of chips here since there may be 100s of tags. Even with the overflow, that might be asking too much of our side drawer to render all of those chips in a readable manner.

Give me a couple days to look into this. I need to pay with some designs and see how we can take scalability into account when there can be a 100 tags

Specifically for this PR, it is considering the display of the archetypes that an application is associated to. I would be surprised if there are 100 different archetypes for an application, even if the number isn't really limited. The drawer has 3 things for the application archetypes:

• the associated list
• from the associated list, which ones are assessed
• from the associated list, which ones are reviewed

Maybe a table layout in another tab like we have in dependency detail drawer?

Maybe it is worth thinking about how similar the application drawer's details/archetypes section and tags tabs should look?

cc: @JustinXHale

[ibolton336]

@JustinXHale Looking for input here. I think it was Ramon who requested the link instead of chips here since there may be 100s of tags. Even with the overflow, that might be asking too much of our side drawer to render all of those chips in a readable manner.

Give me a couple days to look into this. I need to pay with some designs and see how we can take scalability into account when there can be a 100 tags

Specifically for this PR, it is considering the display of the archetypes that an application is associated to. I would be surprised if there are 100 different archetypes for an application, even if the number isn't really limited. The drawer has 3 things for the application archetypes:

• the associated list
• from the associated list, which ones are assessed
• from the associated list, which ones are reviewed

Wondering if we should consider the inverse case - applications for a given archetype being > 100 applications:

Maybe a table layout in another tab like we have in dependency detail drawer?

Like this?

Maybe it is worth thinking about how similar the application drawer's details/archetypes section and tags tabs should look?

Yeah I am not sure what we expect to see for tags. Currently we have this layout which already seems a bit stretched for an app with 40 tags:

cc: @JustinXHale

[JustinXHale]

@ibolton336 i think a label group is great. that was my first thought, just wasnt sure if it would work if its 100 labels. But if that wont be an issue, i think the pattern is perfectly acceptable. We probably need to think about after how many labels to we want to show the more tag, i'm thinking 5.

[ibolton336]

Latest changes move the code for link instead of label list from the app drawer to the archetype drawer as outlined here:
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MTA-2283

[djzager]

ack