User list pagination & Deactivate multiple accounts based on regex

[JacksonChen666]

Resolves #56

Note: This PR contains more than one change:

• User list pagination
• (Main) Deactivate multiple accounts based on regex (depends on user list pagination)

I don't suggest squashing this.

[JOJ0]

Great addition to synadm and I'm very happy we finally have a neat implementation for pagination ourselves. It will come in handy in the future often!! Thanks! Great work!

[JacksonChen666]

...not sure how this PR stalled

[JOJ0]

...not sure how this PR stalled

Some change requests here: #93 (comment)

Also unanswered questions around how the streamlining with --paginate (notice send cmd) and --batch-size should be solved: #93 (comment)

Two ways: Use your idea of option name or use that one of notice send command. Either way, I'd like to streamline behaviour between synadm commands. It is still one software that should follow similar usability principles. That's one of the main goals of the project. -> Yes, will be added to contributing.md as well ;-)

Thanks!

[JacksonChen666]

Also unanswered questions around how the streamlining with --paginate (notice send cmd) and --batch-size should be solved.

--paginate is not super obvious about what is does. --batch-size is a little more obvious (to me) which is why I chose it.

(Are we discussion option names and assuming the user won't use the help function? Maybe)

[JOJ0]

Also unanswered questions around how the streamlining with --paginate (notice send cmd) and --batch-size should be solved.

--paginate is not super obvious about what is does. --batch-size is a little more obvious (to me) which is why I chose it.

(Are we discussion option names and assuming the user won't use the help function? Maybe)

We are discussing that it is bad UI design if the same thing is named differently throughout the project.

Certainly we assume that our valued users will use --help.

We at least try to achieve a "cohesive experience" when it is possible. Certainly there will be places where we were not able to follow that rule or we just missed the opportunity. In that case: Let's try harder.

[JacksonChen666]

I'm not sure what the option is suggested to be, so I changed batch-size to paginate to be consistent with the notice send command. Feel free to git revert that commit if you don't want it like that but instead as batch-size.

[JOJ0]

I'm not sure what the option is suggested to be, so I changed batch-size to paginate to be consistent with the notice send command. Feel free to git revert that commit if you don't want it like that but instead as batch-size.

Honestly, I would prefer option --batch-size because as you say it definitely is very self-explanatory and thus a perfect choice IMO but I would leave the final choice to you since if we go down that route of strealining, there is some things to consider:

• The original submitter of the notice send command, IIRC correctly, decided for --paginate. IIRC there was some discussion around easily being confusable with the global option --batch if it would be used for something like batch size of messages to send out at once. It was in the very early "design phase" where not even a PR was existing yet and it was brainstormed how a command for sending "server notices" could look like. It was a lively and productive discussion but probably hard to follow for reading through it. Just in case you're interested: https://matrix.to/#/!mLATeUxylgHiofUzHJ:peek-a-boo.at/$wEevQ52VnvV7idh8H-WMsIhu5g4Ge3gLIBsVjaUA0kY?via=jacksonchen666.com&via=matrix.org&via=envs.net
• Anyway, the submitter decided for --paginate, while in the meantime I decided following those thoughts of the submitter, that alternative names for --batch would be good, which I brought in with Add aliases to --batch global flag and #77
• As I see it now the confusion of a global --batch/--non-interactive option with a subcommand-dedicated --batch-size option is not too big. Only thing to be careful is probably to not name something just batch in the subcommand's code since we use that for the global flag often.

So long story short I would appreciate if you would go down the road of naming it --batch-size but not forget to change this in subsequent PR for notice send as well.

I would like to start a discussion in #synadm:peek-a-boo.at whether or not people think that such a change would be appreciated or worthwhile, that is a good idea too. I can assist with that if you want.

An alternative way would be to just pragmatically add both options --batch-size as well as --paginate. In a subsequent PR or actually probably it would work if just being added to this one: Add --batch-size as an alias to the notice send command as well.

Also to further reduce the confusion of our global --batch flag with something in the furture using the word batch I suggest we open an issue reminding us to rename all the variables named self.batch, batch, ... to something more distinctive. I suggest: non_interactive or no_confirm. I'm opting to do that change but please help me by leaving a note in an issue! Thanks a lot!

There you have some backstory and I hope it helps moving on in the right direction. Streamlining is not always easy, at least not as easy as it sometimes seems, but it definitely is, that was my experience in the past, much appreciated by users.

[JOJ0]

Hi @JacksonChen666, is it ok for you if I hijack this PR/branch? I would like to have both options: --batch-size and --paginate.

I have a pending change that tries to reduce a possible confusion with what we called "batch mode" so far in PR #102

[JacksonChen666]

sure, you can hijack the PR for the options.

[JOJ0]

Alright, I'm just reviewing this quickly myself. Die some playing around / testing with the commands. Hope I didn't miss anything but I think we are good to go.