Better feedback for changes in the new settings widget

[jhaigh0]

Description of work

It was requested that the 'Apply' button on the new settings widget is greyed out when the user has made no changes to the settings, and enabled when there is a pending change.

The other thing I discovered in this PR is that the test files that were added in the original PR (#38373) were not added to cmake so haven't been running. I thought the search for missing pytest files pre-commit job was supposed to flag this. They've been added in this PR (along with new tests).

Summary of work

Design-wise I thought it best that the model of the settings widget tabs didn't know about the presenter. Instead, the presenter emits a signal when it adds a change in the model which is picked up by the parent presenter. For this I added a QObject base class of the presenters.

There is no associated issue.

Further detail of work

To test:

Play around in the settings widget, change settings and change them back again. 'Apply' button should enable and disable as you expect.

---

Reviewer

Please comment on the points listed below (full description).
Your comments will be used as part of the gatekeeper process, so please comment clearly on what you have checked during your review. If changes are made to the PR during the review process then your final comment will be the most important for gatekeepers. In this comment you should make it clear why any earlier review is still valid, or confirm that all requested changes have been addressed.

Code Review

• Is the code of an acceptable quality?
• Does the code conform to the coding standards?
• Are the unit tests small and test the class in isolation?
• If there is GUI work does it follow the GUI standards?
• If there are changes in the release notes then do they describe the changes appropriately?
• Do the release notes conform to the release notes guide?

Functional Tests

• Do changes function as described? Add comments below that describe the tests performed?
• Do the changes handle unexpected situations, e.g. bad input?
• Has the relevant (user and developer) documentation been added/updated?

Does everything look good? Mark the review as Approve. A member of @mantidproject/gatekeepers will take care of it.

Gatekeeper

If you need to request changes to a PR then please add a comment and set the review status to "Request changes". This will stop the PR from showing up in the list for other gatekeepers.

[cailafinn]

I thought the search for missing pytest files pre-commit job was supposed to flag this.

To answer this, the precommit hook relies on searching for a call to unittest.main(), which it seems like these files are missing. Normally CMake catches this, but if they're the only test files in the directory, I think CMake overlooks them. Might be worth investigating this further and modifying the hook to account for it.

[cailafinn]

Works well, just a quick Q in the code, but nothing that needs changing. I did notice that there was a fair amount of Qt stuff and widgets being called directly in the presenter. That's not ideal, but fixing it definitely isn't in the scope of this PR.

Functionally working well. Apply button enables/disabled properly when making changes to the settings. Settings are saved as expected between runs of workbench. Nice work. This is a really nice usability feature.

[cailafinn]

As this is a base class, are we ever expecting to make usable objects of this class? If not, it might be worth using the abc package to make this an explicit abstract base class.

[jhaigh0]

Works well, just a quick Q in the code, but nothing that needs changing. I did notice that there was a fair amount of Qt stuff and widgets being called directly in the presenter. That's not ideal, but fixing it definitely isn't in the scope of this PR.

Functionally working well. Apply button enables/disabled properly when making changes to the settings. Settings are saved as expected between runs of workbench. Nice work. This is a really nice usability feature.

I have this issue to keep track of some ways we'd like to further improve the settings widget
#38411

I'm very happy for you to leave a comment / edit it with any further changes you think are outside of the scope of this pr

[cailafinn]

Functional testing described above. Code looks good to me now. Nice work! 🚀