View configuration UI: Add indicator denoting rewritten fields

[philsward]

As a new, separate issue to #5261 the request is similar to that issue where an indicator is added to show whether a field has been rewritten. This will aid in helping a site builder understand why a field in the output, isn't acting the way they expect. Having an indicator that a field is rewritten, gives a visual representation of what the field is actually outputting.

Things to do:

• Add a class "views-field-rewritten" to the field link if it is rewritten, similar to how an excluded field has the class "views-field-excluded" to allow custom styling on the link based on the fact that the link is rewritten.
• Add a span to house any icons that may be used as a visual indicator

Possible ideas for icons:

[file-contract] [cog] [wrench] [exclamation] [pen-fancy] [paint-brush]

IMO the file-contract makes the most sense out of these, but I'm not sold on any one of them.

If I missed anything, feel free to add it.

[olafgrabienski]

@philsward Thanks for opening this request! I've removed the [views] prefix from the title. So far we use only a few selected prefixes in square brackets – I know only of the following ones:

[A11Y] [D8] or [D9] [DX] [META] [UX]

[philsward]

@olafgrabienski 👍

[bugfolder]

I've added these issue prefixes to the How to use the core issue queue documentation; see "Creating new issues." Ping me if I missed anything.

[klonos]

When needing to indicate the component an issue is about, I usually prefix the issue title with it. For example:

• CKEditor: Update to v5
• Views: Add stripping to the config form
• Basis: Improve focus indicator

[klonos]

To the issue at hand: similarly to what I proposed in #5261, until we decide on whether to use icons or not (and if so, then which one), we could in the meantime simply add the rewritten status of the field as a plain-text suffix of the field link

Something like this (with the text color dimmed, since it was mentioned in the other ticket that black text makes it too prominent):

[philsward]

I'm not opposed to the visual output of [hidden | rewritten] but I fear this might cause difficult coding to output html than doing [hidden][rewritten], plus it wouldn't be quite as flexible for styling without explicitly separating out each part. It's over my head so maybe I'm wrong.

I would think the end result html code that would allow the most styling flexibility would look something like:

<span class="views-field-indicator"><span class="views-field-hidden">[hidden]</span><span class="views-field-rewritten">[rewritten]></span></span>