[WIP] Layer controls designs implementation and code refactor

[dalthviz]

References and relevant issues

Part of #5358

Description

Initial implementation of the designs being discussed at #5358 while taking into account possible future features that could affect the way the layer controls work/are instantiated (multi-layer selection and LayerGroup definition).

The current changes only cover the controls for the Shapes layer type. From the GUI you can see something like:

Windows	MacOS	Linux

Some of the elements that this PR changes:

• Creates individual classes per widget control (QtWidgetControlsBase, QtOpacityBlendingControls, QtEdgeColorControl, QtEdgeWidthSliderControl, etc) that handle the layer attributes <-> widget values connections.
• Defines methods to add buttons and widget controls (_add_radio_button_mode, _add_push_button_action, add_annotation_widget_controls and add_display_widget_controls) in the base QtLayerControls class.
• Move logic related to layer interactive mode and editable/visible widget controls handling to the base QtLayerControls class.
• Update base controls class layout and napari style rules to start accomodating to the designs details at https://github.com/napari/napari/issues/5358#issuecomment-1699362809

Notes

• ~:warning: As mentioned, the current changes on the branch only make sure that the Shapes layer controls work so trying to use napari to create other layer types running from this branch will probably end up showing errors/failing to create the respective layer controls.~ To prevent errors/failing tests the old base layer controls class is still there for the controls of layer types still not changed. After moving all the control layer classes to use the new base definition it should be removed.
• As mentioned at https://github.com/napari/napari/issues/5358#issuecomment-1726661372 the buttons order will be preserved here. Also not just the order but the layout itself, including spacing between buttons
• It would be nice to first get some feedback on the implementation/code refactor done to see if that makes sense (that's why I only changed how things work for the Shapes layer controls for the moment). If the approach actually makes sense or after incorporating given feedback things look good (in terms of the implementation/code refactor), then I will continue doing here the changes for other layer types. So, although this is still WIP, feel free to comment here what do you think/other ideas to implement this!

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.11494% with 43 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.40%. Comparing base (26976b5) to head (392406a).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...apari/_qt/layer_controls/qt_layer_controls_base.py	87.68%	25 Missing :warning:
...r_controls/widgets/qt_opacity_blending_controls.py	81.13%	10 Missing :warning:
..._qt/layer_controls/widgets/qt_edge_width_slider.py	91.42%	3 Missing :warning:
...i/_qt/layer_controls/widgets/qt_text_visibility.py	93.10%	2 Missing :warning:
.../layer_controls/widgets/qt_widget_controls_base.py	89.47%	2 Missing :warning:
.../_qt/layer_controls/qt_layer_controls_container.py	85.71%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #6219 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 92.48% 92.40% -0.09% ========================================== Files 614 621 +7 Lines 55181 55460 +279 ========================================== + Hits 51036 51248 +212 - Misses 4145 4212 +67 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[isabela-pf]

As anticlimactic as it might be for a first review, I gave the QSS files a look and all looks correct to me so far! The screen shots (thank you for those!) are what I expect as well.

Thank you for getting this started and identifying the feedback you need. I will circle back as more changes go forward, but mostly I'm impressed to see the details percolating so clearly from the start.

[brisvag]

Sorry for leaving this hanging, will probably find the time to get back to this once the 0.4.19 craze is over :)

[Czaki]

@dalthviz This PR still has [WIP] in the title but I see only merging main activity. Did you forget to remove [WIP]?

[brisvag]

I think they're waiting for feedback from us; for now, I haven't had time to dive in and anyways I was waiting for the v0.4.19 to land so folks have mroe time to discuss here.

[dalthviz]

Yep, waiting for feedback here as Lorenzo says. So basically, I left this as [WIP] since this still needs to replicate the changes done to the Shapes layer to the other types of layers. The thing is that, before doing the full refactor for other layers types, I would like to get general feedback about the refactor approach implemented. So to know first if there is something in the approach to improve or if there are any other ideas and in general if this approach is a good enough base for future features like multilayers selection or group layers (so future refactor/changes are smaller/more contained hopefully 🤞🏼 ).

I have been merging with latest main just to fix merge conflicts when they appear and check that the changes here are still compatible with latest main :)

[jni]

Hey @dalthviz,

Are you looking for feedback on the code or on the functionality? We played around with this during the PR party and identified the following issues with the functionality:

• love collapsing the "display" section
• we didn't like that the controls scroll bar is always there, even if there is plenty of room. The scroll bar should disappear (and the full width used) if there is space.
• when display is collapsed, the min height for the controls is too much — I can't actually make use of the collapsing to get more room for the layer list
• the spacing between the buttons is too much now — it should be like the original, or the buttons can be bigger and fill up the space. Also the button arrangement should be the same — it's weird that the bring-to-front/send-to-back buttons are miles away from each other now. 😂

But maybe you are looking for code and not functional suggestions, in which case, hold please. 😅 🙏

[dalthviz]

Hi @jni ! Thank you for the feeback! Although a more code related review could be awesome (to see if the refactor approach I took makes sense), any feedback is appreciated! Checking the funtionality related feedback, maybe people would prefer things to look/work something like the following then?:

Pushed a commit with some changes in case someone wants to check things locally :)

Also, what do you think @isabela-pf ?

[jni]

Checking the funtionality related feedback, maybe people would prefer things to look/work something like the following then?:

Yes, that looks great!

I'll try to make some time this coming week for some code review. Thank you!

[isabela-pf]

@dalthviz This works for me. Thank you for making the update! Thank you for the tag as well. Glad to see this getting some review!