After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 763010 - [Enh] Break out the GtkInfoBar widgets as a separate class
[Enh] Break out the GtkInfoBar widgets as a separate class
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-software
Classification: Applications
Component: General
3.19.x
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: GNOME Software maintainer(s)
GNOME Software maintainer(s)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2016-03-02 20:15 UTC by Rafal Luzynski
Modified: 2016-03-31 09:52 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Screenshot of the info boxes as they are now (126.61 KB, image/png)
2016-03-02 20:15 UTC, Rafal Luzynski
  Details
Introduces the enhancement (26.09 KB, patch)
2016-03-17 01:30 UTC, Rafal Luzynski
none Details | Review
Introduces the enhancement, version 2 (25.82 KB, patch)
2016-03-18 23:46 UTC, Rafal Luzynski
committed Details | Review

Description Rafal Luzynski 2016-03-02 20:15:25 UTC
Created attachment 322917 [details]
Screenshot of the info boxes as they are now

I'd like to break out the info boxes on the Details page as a separate class. gs-shell-details.ui file is huge already, this change would make maintaining it easier. For example, it would help with bug 761240. Also thanks to this change we would be sure that all infoboxes are consistent and if we change something in future we would not have to introduce the same change in 4 places to ensure the consistent look and feel. No visual changes are planned, though.

But before I publish the patch I'd like to make sure that the designers are not going to introduce any major UI change like removing those boxes or restyling them totally because such change would render my work obsolete. So Allan, do you want to leave these boxes unchanged?

Note that one of these boxes ("Internet Only Application") has already been refactored into a tag.

See the screenshot for easier understanding what I mean. These infoboxes are usually hidden and appear very seldom, probably never all together. This screenshot has been made via some custom hacking to visualise all boxes.
Comment 1 Allan Day 2016-03-03 10:53:25 UTC
Thanks for taking a look at this, Rafal!

(In reply to Rafal Luzynski from comment #0)
...
> But before I publish the patch I'd like to make sure that the designers are
> not going to introduce any major UI change like removing those boxes or
> restyling them totally because such change would render my work obsolete. So
> Allan, do you want to leave these boxes unchanged?

I had been thinking about taking another look at the design of these boxes, actually. With the addition of health ratings and reviews, the details pages have become a lot more populated during the 3.19.x cycle. There is therefore a need to tone down some visual elements in order to not overwhelm the page. (There's an effort to do this happening in bug 762273, for example.)

It occurs to me that these info boxes were primarily introduced in the context of manual package installation - they exist to tell the user what the package contains before it is installed.

This makes me wonder whether the info boxes should be transient, and only displayed prior to installation.
Comment 2 Allan Day 2016-03-16 17:30:18 UTC
Sorry for not getting back to you about this sooner, Rafal. I think I was a bit confused when I looked at it before: I thought that the boxes were permanently displayed, but it is only when installing a package file, so they seem generally fine to me.

The one change I would make is to remove the "Software Source Identified" heading. It doesn't read quite right to me.
Comment 3 Rafal Luzynski 2016-03-17 01:30:50 UTC
Created attachment 324149 [details] [review]
Introduces the enhancement

Will this patch be acceptable then? Any change will be easier now, including adding/removing some strings.
Comment 4 Richard Hughes 2016-03-18 16:59:21 UTC
Okay, I think it makes sense to have the property name indicating the content, e.g. title, body and warning. This allows us to theme these in the future in a more portable way. Alternatives would be title, secondary and "note" or "important" or some other word to convey context. Thanks for working on this btw, it'll be a nice cleanup.
Comment 5 Rafal Luzynski 2016-03-18 23:46:20 UTC
Created attachment 324308 [details] [review]
Introduces the enhancement, version 2

(In reply to Richard Hughes from comment #4)
> Okay, I think it makes sense to have the property name indicating the
> content, e.g. title, body and warning.

Here it is.
Comment 6 Richard Hughes 2016-03-31 09:52:25 UTC
Review of attachment 324308 [details] [review]:

Looks great, thanks!