Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[DT-996] Add auth domain selection to create full view snapshot #1748

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

s-rubenstein
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@s-rubenstein s-rubenstein requested a review from a team as a code owner January 30, 2025 19:28
@s-rubenstein s-rubenstein requested review from pshapiro4broad and snf2ye and removed request for a team January 30, 2025 19:28
import TerraTooltip from './TerraTooltip';
import JadeDropdown from '../dataset/data/JadeDropdown';
import { useOnMount } from '../../libs/utils';

interface FullViewSnapshotButtonProps {
const styles = (theme: CustomTheme) =>
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would love to do this in the new style mechanism, so that is tbd

Copy link

cypress bot commented Jan 30, 2025

jade-data-repo-ui    Run #4033

Run Properties:  status check passed Passed #4033  •  git commit 586e09ef4a ℹ️: Merge 6325671c650ee8aec190b3566eba81450bb78294 into 010a0d80c46b41d506e2a13a0c21...
Project jade-data-repo-ui
Branch Review sr/dt-996-auth-domain-snapshot
Run status status check passed Passed #4033
Run duration 02m 55s
Commit git commit 586e09ef4a ℹ️: Merge 6325671c650ee8aec190b3566eba81450bb78294 into 010a0d80c46b41d506e2a13a0c21...
Committer Sky Rubenstein
View all properties for this run ↗︎

Test results
Tests that failed  Failures 0
Tests that were flaky  Flaky 0
Tests that did not run due to a developer annotating a test with .skip  Pending 0
Tests that did not run due to a failure in a mocha hook  Skipped 0
Tests that passed  Passing 17
View all changes introduced in this branch ↗︎

Copy link
Member

@pshapiro4broad pshapiro4broad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks OK to me, it would be nice to see a video of the new UI in the PR

value={selectedAuthDomain || ''}
/>
<div>
Authorization Domains restrict data access to only specified individuals in a group and
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The swagger API has a warning in bold: *** WARNING - Once this is set it cannot be modified ***

Should this have a warning too?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was mainly following the UX set out in the ticket, maybe we can bring this up in standup?

Comment on lines 192 to 193
disabled={groups ? groups.length <= 1 : true}
options={groups ? groups.map((group) => group.groupName) : []}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor style question, does TDR UI prefer ?: over || and &&? For example

            disabled={!(groups?.length > 1)}
            options={groups?.map((group) => group.groupName) || []}

htmlFor="authorization-domain-select"
>
Authorization Domain
<span style={{ fontWeight: 400, color: 'black' }}> - (optional)</span>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the use of (optional) consistent with other optional vs required inputs in TDR UI? I didn't see it used elsewhere in the code.

@@ -972,6 +974,23 @@ export function* getFeatures(): any {
}
}

export function* getUserGroups(): any {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

could you reuse and maybe rename the getFeatures() call? instead of having two of the same API calls?

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Feb 3, 2025

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants