[Toaster] V2: Review request for "Bug 5917 - Task Detail page needs support for "Empty" outcome"

[Barros Pena, Belen]

On 07/03/2014 23:21, "Reyna, David" <david.reyna at windriver.com> wrote:

>Hi Belén,
>
>I have updated my commit.
>
>  dreyna/tasks_empty_outcome_5917
>
>> I am happy to go with whichever option you think is best.
>
>I have extended the text, rather than hide it in the tooltip, because I
>found that the most helpful to me as a developer and user of Toaster.

Looks good, thanks!

>
>Thanks,
>David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Barros Pena, Belen [mailto:belen.barros.pena at intel.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 6:28 AM
>> To: Reyna, David
>> Cc: toaster at yoctoproject.org
>> Subject: Re: Review request for "Bug 5917 - Task Detail page needs
>>support
>> for "Empty" outcome"
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/03/2014 13:55, "Reyna, David" <david.reyna at windriver.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Hi again,
>> >
>> >> Problem is: we don't know which one applies to a certain empty task.
>>So
>> >> although I added that notification to the design, we should probably
>>not
>> >> use it, since right now such notification would be really just a
>>guess
>> >> (not something we are actually checking for).
>> >
>> >Hmm, I think that you should leave it in the design because that advice
>> >fulfills a purpose (as well as helps the visual layout). I think we can
>> >update the help text to exactly what you wrote to me, for example:
>> >
>> >  "This task is empty because it has the <code>noexec</code> flag set
>>to
>> ><code>1</code>, or the task function is empty"
>> 
>> This sounds ok to me, although I can't help thinking it's a bit
>>redundant.
>> We should probably just add it to the help tooltip (instead of having
>>the
>> explanation split between the help tooltip and the alert). We could also
>> get rid of the help tooltip next to the task outcome, but we have it for
>> all other tasks. I am happy to go with whichever option you think is
>>best.
>> 
>> >
>> >In any case, do you want me to make and re-push an update one way of
>>the
>> >other for the patch?
>> 
>> That would be great. Thanks!
>> 
>> >
>> >- David
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Barros Pena, Belen [mailto:belen.barros.pena at intel.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 2:14 AM
>> >> To: Reyna, David
>> >> Cc: toaster at yoctoproject.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Review request for "Bug 5917 - Task Detail page needs
>> >>support
>> >> for "Empty" outcome"
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for fixing this, David!
>> >>
>> >> On 07/03/2014 06:26, "Reyna, David" <david.reyna at windriver.com>
>>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hi Belen,
>> >> >
>> >> >I have fixed Bug 5917 by adding support for the "Empty" outcome
>>value
>> >>to
>> >> >the task pages.
>> >> >
>> >> >  dreyna/tasks_empty_outcome_5917
>> >> >
>> >> >This patch in on top of a cherry-pick of your related fix:
>> >> >
>> >> >    bitbake: toaster: Fix help text for task details outcome
>> >> >(d20034c9be9094af31cf63fc9ce56e19cfa87c82)
>> >> >
>> >> >This patch adds these fixes:
>> >> >
>> >> >  1) In the tasks page, you can now sort by "Empty"
>> >>
>> >> When you say sort, do you mean that the 'Empty task' option in the
>> >>Outcome
>> >> filter works? Which it does, by the way :)
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >  2) In the task detail page, the help icon now has the text "This
>>task
>> >> >has no executable content"
>> >>
>> >> This works, thanks!
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >  3) In the task detail page, you now have the <div> for "empty"
>> >>outcomes
>> >> >of:
>> >> >
>> >> >     "This task is empty because it has the <code>noexec</code> flag
>> >>set
>> >> >to <code>1</code>"
>> >>
>> >> I have been told there are at least 2 reasons why a task might no
>>have
>> >> executable content:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Because it has the noexec flag set
>> >> 2. Because the task function is empty
>> >>
>> >> Problem is: we don't know which one applies to a certain empty task.
>>So
>> >> although I added that notification to the design, we should probably
>>not
>> >> use it, since right now such notification would be really just a
>>guess
>> >> (not something we are actually checking for).
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >David
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> 
>