On 23.05.2018 we have had a workshop where we discussed the proposed features. Even though the general feedback was positive and none of the features was rejected, there's still a lot of work to do to take the effort to the production-grade level.
Below is the proposed mind-map with possible further steps that we could take (the source XMind file is also attached).
Rough effort estimation
About 300 story points
Below can be found a table with description and coarse estimates of the possible further steps (time-wise* and priority-wise**).
* (Time-wise the tasks are estimated relatively to Aleksandr Pchelintcev, i.e. if the assignee of the issue wasn't fiddling with the UI thoroughly lately, some time has to be added to get in the context.)
** (Priority-wise the tasks go from the brightest ... ... to the coldest )
|Name||Description:||Estimate SP||Depended upon by Resurface?||Delivery|
|Cross-field interaction support|
The field hierarchy is now kept in the form binders, so technically it is available while form is active and could be injectable in the validators and/or fields themselves. Need to see how to better expose such hierarchy and how to address at least some of the issues related to the topic.
Timebox to 13 SP, possible followed by smaller efforts.
DEV-920 - Getting issue details... STATUS
MGNLUI-2542 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|13||No||Before 6.0 because new APIs are introduced.|
Develop an alternative to JCR for browsing and form viewing/editing. See the synergy with the REST client (or use some other approach). Goal - to have easily configurable REST browser and REST-based forms
Getting issue details...
Validate foundation, APIs before next major.
Ship with new major of REST Client any time.
|Forms with alternative layout|
Ship 1-2 alternative ways to layout forms. The APIs are in place, even some implementation has started.
DEV-983 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||Maybe||DEV-983 Before 6.0|
|Validation within composite fields|
Re-use 'validation bubble' effort from the past, try to provide universal validation/description UI regardless of the layout.
DEV-992 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||Yes, consider||Ideally in 6.0|
|[optional] Master-detail subapp|
Test the flexibility of the new UI framework views and combine browser and detail in one subapp (should be as easy as binding the pre-created form to the current selection in e.g. tree view)
DEV-991 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|5||No||after 6.0, independently|
|[optional] Filterable columns in Grids|
The PoC solution contains column renderer which allows to filter tree grid by path. Consider productising such feature and see how would it be possible to incorporate it into configuration and implementation of the content views.
DEV-993 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||No||after 6.0, independently|
|Name||Description||Estimate SP||Depended upon by Resurface?||Delivery|
|Multi-value field UI|
DEV-976 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|Multi-selection support in browser|
ValueContext needs generalisation (to conveniently cover the single vs multi selection cases)DEV-999 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|Harden DS observation mechanism|
ContentChangeEvent replacement needs to be hardened: should be memory-leak safe, should be clear, corner-cases should be considered. Observation should also work for the case of the detail sub-app
DEV-1001 - Getting issue details... STATUS
DEV-974 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|Migrate more fields|
DEV-978 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|Harden JCR browsing implementation|
Remaining JCR data source configuration, full-text search support in lists etc.
DEV-1000 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Thanks to the view-contexts and view improvements it is probably possible to make a form dialog implementation that shares most of the code with the detail sub-app, still requires quite some work.
DEV-1006 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||No||ideally in 6.0 but could be later|
|Port more column renderers|
DEV-977 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||No||6.0, grid doesn't know about the old renderers. Compatibility wrapper is an alternative.|
|Re-instate previews in actionbar|
Re-add the feature (should be simple with ValueContext). Question the abstraction of ImageProvider.
DEV-1002 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|5||No||can be after 6.0 but some work must be done before 6.0|
|Keyboard shortcuts in the grids and forms|
Currently not ported over from the old implementation. Need to see also how to do it better.
DEV-1005 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||No||6.0, otherwise keyboard shortcuts won't work. Can be timeboxed to 5 SP.|
|Implement Vaadin 8 - based inline row editing|
Grid/TreeGrid has in-built editor API, which can play together with parts of the from framework improvements that we introduced (binders/propertysets etc). Add support for inline editing in Grid/TreeGrid
DEV-1003 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||No||6.0, basic inline editing capability is required. Enhancements can come later.|
|App descriptor migration|
Think of a strategy (special sub-app that takes an old descriptor and translates to the new or some hybrid descriptor). Consider migrating whatever is easily migrated (fields, columns etc).
DEV-989 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|Legacy action support|
It seems to be fairly sufficient to expose the selection context a set of JcrNodeAdapter to make some UI actions work. See how many we can cover by this and what is needed to cover more.
DEV-990 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|Migrate bundled content apps to new APIs|
With 6.0 we would want to ship our own apps that are already based on the new API's. Ideally we'd just migrate the configuration and deprecate the current ones.
DEV-1010 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Users expect simpler configuration with the new UI framework. Consider using the improvements we get from content types effort and type references. We use type references for fields today but the mechanism can be used also elsewhere.
|Apply the type references where possible|
New UI improvements do not make the descriptors any leaner as is (in order to not make the configuration less powerful). With type references for whatever possible we could mitigate this fact.
DEV-798 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|Content type powered config|
Requires content type solution to be available. Would be nice to shave some config parts off the detail sub-app and form dialogs.
DEV-1007 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||No||ideally in 6.0 but technically can be later|
Actions DEV-959 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|Re-start async action effort|
Use Java 8 instead of Quartz. Try to ship the asynchronous-ness as a trait/mix-in of an action, not as some base abstract class
DEV-816 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|21||No||Can be done after 6.0, should probably postpone.|
See if it would be possible to re-use the UI tests for our own apps when they are ported to the new framework. Port the UI tests so they work with the newly migrated apps.
DEV-1009 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|21||Yes, possibly. Resurface may introduce style name changes that break the UI tests.||6.0 if we migrate all our own apps to the UI framework by release date|
|UI push support|
Finally incorporate Vaadin's push support. Replace poll with push.
DEV-797 - Getting issue details... STATUS
|8||No||Can be done after 6.0|
There are probably bugs in the new UI implementation, maybe there will be potential blockers even. I can't estimate that, but I'd add at least 2.5-3 weeks for that on top of the total estimate.
|21||Yes, Resurface may cause bugs||6.0|