Add a new SettingsTemplate.yml input type: inputWithFolderBtn #89
Conversation
Yusyuriv
added
documentation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request introduce a new input type, Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant SettingsEditDialog
participant PasteHandler
participant SettingsComponentDemo
User->>SettingsEditDialog: Selects input type (file/folder)
SettingsEditDialog->>SettingsComponentDemo: Update input type
SettingsComponentDemo->>PasteHandler: Validate input type
PasteHandler-->>SettingsComponentDemo: Return validation result
SettingsComponentDemo-->>User: Display selected input type
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
webcomponents/src/components/PasteHandler.svelte (1)
10-10: Consider grouping related input types.For better maintainability, consider grouping related input types like 'inputWithFileBtn' and 'inputWithFolderBtn' together in the array.
-const types: ComponentType[] = ['textBlock', 'input', 'inputWithFileBtn', 'inputWithFolderBtn', 'passwordBox', 'textarea', 'dropdown', 'checkbox']; +const types: ComponentType[] = ['textBlock', 'input', 'passwordBox', 'textarea', 'dropdown', 'checkbox', 'inputWithFileBtn', 'inputWithFolderBtn'];webcomponents/src/components/SettingsEditDialog.svelte (2)
149-149: Consider refactoring the condition for better maintainability.While the implementation is correct, the growing condition could be refactored to be more maintainable.
Consider this approach:
-{#if data.type === 'input' || data.type === 'inputWithFileBtn' || data.type === 'inputWithFolderBtn' || data.type === 'passwordBox'} +{#if ['input', 'inputWithFileBtn', 'inputWithFolderBtn', 'passwordBox'].includes(data.type)}Or for better type safety:
const TEXT_INPUT_TYPES = ['input', 'inputWithFileBtn', 'inputWithFolderBtn', 'passwordBox'] as const; // In the template {#if TEXT_INPUT_TYPES.includes(data.type)}
Line range hint
1-238: Consider adding test coverage for the new input type.While the implementation is solid, ensure that:
- Unit tests cover the new
inputWithFolderBtntype- Integration tests verify the interaction with the folder selection dialog
- The component correctly handles folder paths in different formats
json-rpc-settings.md (1)
43-44: LGTM! Clear introduction of the new input type.The documentation effectively introduces
inputWithFolderBtnalongsideinputWithFileBtnand clearly explains their distinct purposes.Consider enhancing the documentation with:
- An example specifically for
inputWithFolderBtn- Any folder-specific behaviors or limitations
- Side-by-side examples showing both types in action
Example addition:
type: inputWithFileBtn attributes: name: file label: This is a text input with a Browse button description: Description of the input defaultValue: Hello there
- type: inputWithFolderBtn
- attributes:
- name: folder
- label: Select a folder
- description: Choose a folder to process
- defaultValue: C:\Users\Username\Documents
</blockquote></details> </blockquote></details> <details> <summary>📜 Review details</summary> **Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI** **Review profile: CHILL** <details> <summary>📥 Commits</summary> Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dcf31652129d9d00b98ae9dbf179294cf94718b1 and 1f98a53ed50c43a7d2b47ccf2360c72e4b194bba. </details> <details> <summary>📒 Files selected for processing (5)</summary> * `json-rpc-settings.md` (1 hunks) * `webcomponents/src/components/PasteHandler.svelte` (1 hunks) * `webcomponents/src/components/SettingsEditDialog.svelte` (2 hunks) * `webcomponents/src/types.ts` (1 hunks) * `webcomponents/src/webcomponents/SettingsComponentDemo.svelte` (1 hunks) </details> <details> <summary>🔇 Additional comments (7)</summary> <details> <summary>webcomponents/src/types.ts (2)</summary> `5-5`: **LGTM! Verify usage across components.** The new type `inputWithFolderBtn` is properly integrated into the `ComponentType` union. Let's verify the usage of this new type across components: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Check if the new input type is properly integrated in all necessary components # Expected: Find references in PasteHandler.svelte, SettingsEditDialog.svelte, and other related files # Search for direct references to the new type rg "inputWithFolderBtn" # Search for component type handling to ensure proper integration ast-grep --pattern 'ComponentType'
5-5: Dependency notice: This change requires Flow.Launcher#3057.This type addition is dependent on Flow.Launcher/Flow.Launcher#3057. Please ensure that PR is merged first or coordinate the merging of both PRs.
webcomponents/src/components/PasteHandler.svelte (2)
Line range hint
11-39: LGTM: Robust validation and error handling.The existing validation and error handling in
verifyDataandonPastefunctions work well with the new input type:
- Type validation is performed before accepting pasted data
- Error handling gracefully ignores invalid YAML
- UUID generation ensures unique IDs for new components
10-10: Verify type definition update across the codebase.The addition of 'inputWithFolderBtn' to the types array needs corresponding updates to the ComponentType type definition.
Let's verify the type definition and its usage:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the type definition since it wasn't clearly shown in the previous results.
Type definition and usage are properly synchronized
The
ComponentTypetype definition inwebcomponents/src/types.tsalready includes 'inputWithFolderBtn' and all its usages across the codebase are consistent with the type definition. The changes are properly reflected in:
- Type definition in
types.ts- Component handling in
SettingsEditDialog.svelte- UI rendering in
SettingsComponentDemo.svelte- Documentation in
json-rpc-settings.md🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if ComponentType is properly updated to include the new type # and verify all usages of the new type # Check the type definition rg -A 5 "type ComponentType = " # Check all usages of inputWithFolderBtn rg "inputWithFolderBtn"Length of output: 994
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the complete ComponentType definition ast-grep --pattern 'type ComponentType = $_'Length of output: 475
webcomponents/src/webcomponents/SettingsComponentDemo.svelte (2)
51-51: LGTM: Class binding correctly extended for folder buttonThe class binding extension ensures consistent layout between file and folder button inputs.
56-58: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionImprove button label clarity and verify integration
The current implementation has a few concerns:
- The generic "Browse" label doesn't indicate whether it's for file or folder selection
- The button behavior needs to be properly integrated with Flow.Launcher#3057
Consider making the button label more specific:
- <SettingsButton {theme}>Browse</SettingsButton> + <SettingsButton {theme}>{type === 'inputWithFolderBtn' ? 'Select Folder' : 'Select File'}</SettingsButton>webcomponents/src/components/SettingsEditDialog.svelte (1)
50-51: LGTM! Clear and consistent input type definitions.The descriptions for both file and folder selection inputs are well-defined and maintain consistency with the existing pattern.
This PR adds a new type of input for JS/Python plugins:
inputWithFolderBtn. Related to Flow-Launcher/Flow.Launcher#3057. Should be merged only if the aforementioned PR also gets merged.