fix: rework overview pane in schema browser #954
Conversation
| /> | ||
| ), | ||
| }; | ||
| if (!currentSchemaData) return undefined; |
| if (isNumeric(CreateStep) && Number(CreateStep)) { | ||
| overview.push({ | ||
| label: 'Created', | ||
| value: dateTimeParse(Number(CreateStep))?.format('YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm'), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's add helper in src/utils to format dates in one place. This helper will be used here and in formatDateTime function.
|
|
||
| let component = | ||
| currentSchemaData?.PathType && pathTypeToComponent[currentSchemaData.PathType]?.(); | ||
| // show SubType if it's not EPathSubTypeEmpty |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lets remove obvious comments
| const overview: InfoViewerItem[] = []; | ||
|
|
||
| // for any schema type | ||
| overview.push({label: 'Type', value: PathType?.replace(/^EPathType/, '')}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add all labels with i18n
| if (PathType === EPathType.EPathTypeExtSubDomain) { | ||
| overview.push({ | ||
| label: 'Paths count', | ||
| value: PathDescription?.DomainDescription?.PathsInside?.length, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in the types PathsInside is a string, it seems that counting it's length is incorrect
| }); | ||
| overview.push({ | ||
| label: 'Shards count', | ||
| value: PathDescription?.DomainDescription?.ShardsInside?.length, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in the types ShardsInside is a string, it seems that counting it's length is incorrect
|
|
||
| const value = pqGroup?.PQTabletConfig?.PartitionConfig?.LifetimeSeconds; | ||
| if (value) { | ||
| const hours = (value / HOUR_IN_SECONDS).toFixed(2); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's move this calculation to function
|
|
||
| // verbose mapping to guarantee a correct render for new path types | ||
| // TS will error when a new type is added but not mapped here | ||
| const pathTypeToComponent: Record<EPathType, (() => React.ReactNode) | undefined> = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you think about not to delete this mapping? I think it's rather useful when add a new type.
In the past it was a headache to remember all places where we need to add info about new type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For old version we are creating a new component for any type separately. But I've rewrote the logic to have common info and adding addition info for certain type.
May be it is possible to rewrite with pathTypeToInfo function with Record<>, but I don't understand the meaning of this
I have deleted unnecessary components, because move this logic inside main component