-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
Conversation
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging eb21f5d into a6664ce - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
* NOTE: A VSCode setting for correct formatting OOTB would be great
<v-text-field type="datetime-local" label="Until" v-model="value.max" clearable></v-text-field> | ||
</v-col> | ||
</v-row> | ||
<v-row v-if="value && (value.type=='string' || value.type=='number' || value.type=='boolean')"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about use v-switch
for booleans?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure, if this will work here, since the secure property filter - while being a boolean - can have multiple states:
- Do not filter
- Filter for true values
- Filter for false values
- Filter for undefined values
That's why I kept v-select here.
Or do you have a better idea.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ahochsteger Aren't states: indeterminate
true
and false
? For filtering bools usually checkboxes
are used and them can have an indeterminate
state (that equals to undefined).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Check it here: https://vuetifyjs.com/en/components/checkboxes/#states
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good idea - will change it to that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A consequence of changing to 3-state v-switch would be that it would not possible anymore to just show nodes where the secure flag is undefined.
Do you still think, it's better to change it from v-select to v-switch?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't all filter checks skip when switch is indeterminate
(so the value undefined
) ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are right, that this would be inconsistent with other data types.
The only use case where filtering for undefined values might be for debugging Zwave2Mqtt itself but this may not be something a typical user would need.
If you think we don't need it, I will change it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you think we don't need it, I will change it.
Ok!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's done, but I'm not really happy with the resulting layout spacing (caused by v-menu > v-card > v-card-text > v-row > v-col > v-checkbox):
I tried to reduce the nesting (at least for v-checkbox) down to v-menu > v-card > v-checkbox but that resulted in missing padding on the left that I was not able to add using CSS spacing helpers (e.g. pa-.. or ma-...) since they had no effect.
Being a first time Vuetify user I could need some help here.
If you have a better suggestion for the checkbox label, please let me know.
This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 82f1d53 into a6664ce - view on LGTM.com new alerts:
|
@ahochsteger Could you fix lint errors? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
really happy there's tests ❤️
I do wonder though if we've introduced a lot of alot of rigidity on the table, and how much harder it'll be to say add additional columns
Sorry, but I don't find the reason for the following lint errors:
It doesn't tell me what's wrong. |
@ahochsteger Run without the --check it'll do the fixes for you |
Not that harder, just a little bit |
Thanks, it's done. |
Kudos for tests go to @mrwho, who did the hard work in #582 on which this PR is based on. Concerning your comment on adding columns: |
yeah, we need to fix the coverage collector, don't worry about that for now. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Thanks @ahochsteger ! :)
@robertsLando you are welcome - I'm looking forward to the next release :-). |
This PR is a merged and improved version of #582 and #800 and adds the possibility to filter nodes by their column values.
Filtering can done by the following ways:
Screenshots:
Icons have been added to activate the filter options and to indicate a filtered column:
Example of a substring and list selection filter:
Example of min/max number value filter:
Example of min/max date value filter: