Regroup advanced settings #5489
Conversation
|
I haven't tested it with the corporate site, first I want to know if we are ok with this :) |
| @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ | |||
| {% load i18n %} | |||
| <p class="empty"> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Used the same patter that we have in settings https://readthedocs.org/dashboard/docs/edit/
|
I think we could adapt the note in the second group to say something like: "These settings can be defined in the YAML file. We strongly recommend that." or something like that inviting people to use the config file instead of the web. |
Agreed with @humitos -- the goal here is to push people to use YAML. We should also likely have logic here that shows if they already have a YAML config in their builds, and then puts a big warning that these settings won't do anything, if they do. |
But we'll be lying, these settings will still affect to the versions without a config file, we can't determinate exactly that sadly. |
|
But we can show that in the build page :), I'm creating another issue to track that |
Sure, but we can detect if any versions use a config, and make the warning more pronounced. We could even presumably query all active versions and say "these settings will apply to 2 out of 6 versions)" if it isn't too heavy on the DB. |
|
I think we should avoid making our UX for this view more complicated and instead frame these as "Default options" -- meaning, there is a path to overriding the options. Adding display to the view that adds information on which versions use which configuration option feels like we're putting emphasis on the wrong UI. The thing we can do here is completely hide the options for new projects, instead pointing them to the config file for all their versions. But i think we're addressing that separately. |
I put some thoughts about that in #5413
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added a few minor bits of feedback but I'm pretty happy with this change overall. Great job!
The thing we can do here is completely hide the options for new projects, instead pointing them to the config file for all their versions. But i think we're addressing that separately.
I'm 👍 on doing this generally but I do agree that's a larger change involving a couple pieces and may not be best suited for here.
| @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | |||
| {% load i18n %} | |||
| <p class="empty"> | |||
| {% blocktrans with config_file_link="https://docs.readthedocs.io/page/config-file" %} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd link directly to the v2 config file docs: https://docs.readthedocs.io/page/config-file/v2.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, you might consider adding trimmed to the blocktrans tag.
readthedocs/templates/projects/project_advanced_settings_helptext.html
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-Authored-By: stsewd <[email protected]>
|
Looks like we need to fix something in the styles of the corporate site :)
|
Co-Authored-By: stsewd <[email protected]>
| @@ -13,7 +14,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| {% block project_edit_content %} | |||
| <form method="post" action=".">{% csrf_token %} | |||
| {{ form.as_p }} | |||
| {% crispy form %} | |||
| <p> | |||
| <input style="display: inline;" type="submit" value="{% trans "Save" %}"> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@stsewd
{% crispy form %} renders
<form>
<!-- csrf token -->
<!-- content -->
</form>And we have wrapped this in outer <form> tag and it is finally rendering something like this.
and so the Save button, which is rendered outside <form> tag, is not working anymore. We need to fix this before merging this in rel branch
docs: https://django-crispy-forms.readthedocs.io/en/latest/crispy_tag_forms.html#fundamentals
This is a continuation of #5459
Closes #5413
It looks like this
I'm not sure about the texts, so any help is welcome.