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

[Admin] Rethink Table filter UX and implementation #5945

Open
tvdeyen opened this issue Nov 19, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

[Admin] Rethink Table filter UX and implementation #5945

tvdeyen opened this issue Nov 19, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@tvdeyen
Copy link
Member

tvdeyen commented Nov 19, 2024

There are several flaws with the new admin table filter and search implementation.

  1. One can only choose one filter at the time
  2. The fulltext search submits on key stroke
  3. Scope selection disappear when a filter or search is happening
  4. You cannot see a filter being enabled without opening a filter dropdown again

Most of that because there is no submit button, lacking any semantics of this form. This is why the code needs to be overly complex, which makes it very hard to maintain or to fix bugs and contribute.

This makes it necessary to run all admin feature specs in full JS enabled browsers, making them slow and flaky. As we are all aware of (nearly every single PR has flaky admin specs).

I like JS to enhance UX, but for simple things like search forms we need to make sure it works without it. Also we have Turbo, wich make forms submits very fast. Stimulus is not necessary for this at all.

Since we are currently laying the foundation for the new admin and encourage the community to contribute, we need to give good examples on how we want to build a maintainable admin interface. The current admin does not give such a good example at the moment.

I am a bit alarming here as we approach to finalize the admin and we as the core team will have to maintain this code for a very long time. Which I am not sure I am willing to.

@tvdeyen
Copy link
Member Author

tvdeyen commented Nov 19, 2024

@MadelineCollier @solidusio/core-team Can we address this soonish?

@kennyadsl
Copy link
Member

@tvdeyen Agree! The figma files are just a reference and should be evaluated with the trade-off of development effort and complexity. Thanks for flagging!

@MadelineCollier
Copy link
Contributor

Seems like a sensible edit @tvdeyen, mind if I tackle this after I close out the store_credit flow? Apologies, I have had a few weeks off work but back at it this week.

@tvdeyen
Copy link
Member Author

tvdeyen commented Nov 20, 2024

Sure @MadelineCollier whenever it works for you. Mostly I wanted to get your thoughts on this topic, but I guess we have an agreement. I am happy. Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants