config: add Service.RequiredLabels

[mastercactapus]

Description:
Adds a Required Labels field for services.

• Creating a new service will require the user to input a value for the label
• Editing a service will allow updating required label(s), but not force

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Part of #3425

Out of Scope:

• Displaying labels on details page (in another PR)
• Reporting on services missing required labels
• Enforcing a hard requirement via API or otherwise
• Validating the input beyond empty/not-empty

Screenshots:

Describe any introduced user-facing changes:

• Required service labels will now appear in the ServiceForm
• Create Service dialog will require a user to set a value

Describe any introduced API changes:
N/A

[tony-tvu]

A couple things that should be addressed:

• There's no validation on admin configs page for invalid label keys.
• There's no error message when editing a service config's label and submitting.

[mastercactapus]

@tony-tvu good catch, I added the validation for Config and updated the form to display label value errors. you can validate it by adding trailing space to the value in one of the dialogs

[Forfold]

It would be nice to see this hidden requirement before submitting and receiving an error. Also, the error message displayed could definitely be improved (likely very out of scope though) since it's using the fieldName+index: and not the Field Name:

[Forfold]

One more UX related topic, can we make it so we know that we are filling out a label when creating a service? Maybe have the field name be Service Label, and the actual set label can be a fixed left-adornment within the text field.

Old:

New:

The FormField code for the new, if accepted:

<FormField
  ...
  label='Service Label'
  InputProps={{
    startAdornment: (
      <InputAdornment position='start'>
        {labelName}:
      </InputAdornment>
    ),
  }}
/>

[mastercactapus]

@Forfold

• for the validation bit, it's not ideal but yeah probably out of scope since it's just following the existing pattern.
• I agree with updating the text to include the format though, I'll work on that.
• Hmm, I never thought about an adornment, I do like that better, not sure about Service Label though on every field -- there could be several; how would that look if there were 5?

I'd like to switch to the adornment thing if we can figure out how to label the fields in a way that's not too repetitive

[Forfold]

@mastercactapus

I think I would be okay with it since each would have a unique adornment.

Or if there's more than 1 we could put in the effort to make it like the admin config text field:

-Service Labels--------------------
| first/key:                      |
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
| second/key:                     |
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
| third/key:                      |
-----------------------------------

[Forfold]

Updated the label ux:

(one label required)

(more than one label required)