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

Bulk completion criteria fix #3798

Merged

Conversation

rtibbles
Copy link
Member

@rtibbles rtibbles commented Nov 4, 2022

Summary

Description of the change(s) you made

  • Uses uniqWith to do a deep comparison of options objects
  • If all options are not unique then just return nonUnique for the entire value passed into CompletionOptions
  • Disable editing of learner managed when non-unique
  • Ensure that the completionDropdown shows an empty placeholder, forcing the user to make a selection there first in bulk edits

Manual verification steps performed

  1. Edit one item to have a specific set of completion criteria
  2. Select two other items of the same kind that have a different criteria
  3. Confirm that you can now (restrictedly) edit these in sync and have it persist

Screenshots (if applicable)

Screencast.from.11-04-2022.02.38.53.PM.webm.mp4

Does this introduce any tech-debt items?

This is not an ideal user experience, but doing it better would involve more specific reading and patching of the nested representations inside the options objects

Fixes #3794

Copy link
Member

@marcellamaki marcellamaki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This seems to be a workable solution for now. Code is straightforward and better than doing a large revision, and manual QA checks out

Disable editing of anything except the completion dropdown when non-unique.
@pcenov
Copy link
Member

pcenov commented Nov 8, 2022

Tested and verified that this is implemented as specified, no issues observed.

@rtibbles rtibbles deleted the bulk_completion_criteria branch November 8, 2022 21:25
@bjester bjester mentioned this pull request Nov 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants