Skip to content

fix: improve provisioner details layout and show count line #14749

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

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Sep 20, 2024

Conversation

aslilac
Copy link
Member

@aslilac aslilac commented Sep 20, 2024

  • Make the provisioner tiles more responsive to page width
  • Show the number of groups and provisioners at the top of the page
  • Better tags handling for PSK groups

Copy link
Member

@Parkreiner Parkreiner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!
(Also, there's a typo in Jaayden's name – it says "Jyeden", as in rhymes with "chai")

Comment on lines 33 to 39
interface ProvisionerGroupProps {
readonly buildInfo?: BuildInfoResponse;
readonly keyName?: string;
readonly keyName: string;
readonly keyTags: Record<string, string>;
readonly type: ProvisionerGroupType;
readonly provisioners: readonly ProvisionerDaemon[];
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a reason why we haven't been using the Readonly utility type more? I can't help but feel like this is a little less typing for just as much type-safety. Plus, I don't think any of our code will ever need to take advantage of interface merging

type ProvisionerGroupProps = Readonly<{
  buildInfo?: BuildInfoResponse;
  keyName: string;
  keyTags: Readonly<Record<string, string>>;
  type: ProvisionerGroupType;
  provisioners: readonly ProvisionerDaemon[];
}>

I know our entire API types file uses interfaces, but I'm a little fussed about that, since it's all auto-generated

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, I've just been trying something 🤷‍♀️ idek if we get any benefit out of it when we immediately destructure the props off of the object in the component

@aslilac
Copy link
Member Author

aslilac commented Sep 20, 2024

it says "Jyeden"

何?

In Romaji it should be "Jaiden". I guess it should probably be "Je" but it is definitely not "Jyeden". 🤔

@Parkreiner
Copy link
Member

@aslilac Yeah, sorry – the "jye" mora doesn't exist in Japanese. I wrote it like that because it's close to the English words "rye" and "dye"

@aslilac
Copy link
Member Author

aslilac commented Sep 20, 2024

ahh I get what you meant now

@aslilac aslilac merged commit 3338f32 into main Sep 20, 2024
27 checks passed
@aslilac aslilac deleted the lilac/add-provisioner-count branch September 20, 2024 20:59
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 20, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants