build-trust / ockam

Orchestrate end-to-end encryption, cryptographic identities, mutual authentication, and authorization policies between distributed applications – at massive scale.
https://ockam.io
Apache License 2.0
4.49k stars 559 forks source link

Make `ockam project delete` (no args) interactive by asking the user to choose from a list of space and project names to delete (tuify) #6461

Open nazmulidris opened 1 year ago

nazmulidris commented 1 year ago

Current behavior

When a user runs ockam project delete without any arguments, currently they are shown an error & some help text is displayed asking them to provide the <SPACE_NAME> and <PROJECT_NAME>. Here's a screenshot of this.

Image

Desired behavior

Instead of displaying this help text, change the behavior of this command so that it becomes interactive with the user. Note that this can only be allowed to happen if:

The user needs to be asked for 2 things: 1) one <SPACE_NAME> 2) one or more <PROJECT_NAME>

This what the user flow should look like in interactive mode. 1) Use the tuify crate's select_from_list() function to ask the user to select from a list of space names. They should be able to make a single selection. If there are none, then simply display a message saying that none exist (not an error) and exit.

2) Use the tuify crate's select_from_list() function to ask the user to select from a list of project names (for their given space name). They should be able to make a multiple selections.

3) Once the user has made their selection(s), display a confirmation prompt letting the user know that that a destructive operation is about to take place with the space name and project name(s) (belonging to that space) they have selected. Use select_from_list() to display this prompt. They should be able to make a single selection.

The following is a video showing a generic user flow that shows the user experience when a user is asked to choose a from a list of "things". Then an action is performed on each "thing". Finally status information is reported for each action that is performed on each "thing". Please note that this flow is not specific to this issue. Image https://asciinema.org/a/612547

Implementation details


We love helping new contributors! ❤️ If you have questions or need help as you explore, please join us on Discord. If you're looking for other issues to contribute to, please checkout our good first issues.

biesnecker commented 1 year ago

Hi, I would be interested in taking this on. I'll start to poke at the code and see if I have any questions.

nazmulidris commented 1 year ago

@biesnecker That's awesome, this is all yours. Please let us know if you have any questions as you explore. You can also ask questions on the contributors discord https://discord.gg/RAbjRr3kds

biesnecker commented 1 year ago

I asked on Discord but will record here too:

Hi, I'm looking at https://github.com/build-trust/ockam/issues/6461, and running into an error when I try to make the space_name and project_name options optional in the delete command. The actual error I get is:

future cannot be sent between threads safely
future returned by `rpc` is not `Send`rustcClick for full compiler diagnostic
delete.rs(56, 6): opaque type is declared here
delete.rs(43, 12): this item depends on auto traits of the hidden type, but may also be registering the hidden type. This is not supported right now. You can try moving the opaque type and the item that actually registers a hidden type into a new submodule
delete.rs(49, 5): future is not `Send` as it awaits another future which is not `Send`
mod.rs(51, 62): required by a bound in `node_rpc`

I more or less understand what it's saying, but I don't understand how switching from String to Option<String> would cause it. miette::Result doesn't change. The example PR given (https://github.com/build-trust/ockam/pull/6480) uses local_cmd rather than node_rpc, which might be why it wasn't an issue in that one?

Lumexralph commented 1 year ago

If this issue is not yet done, please, can you assign it to me?

nazmulidris commented 1 year ago

@Lumexralph It is all yours! 👍🏽