Service Configuration Form Mandatory Field Handling

tobru commented

2025-07-17 12:37:19 +00:00

Owner

Stories

As a user, I want to have a meaningful service configuration form in regards to mandatory fields.

Implementation Notes

Show all mandatory fields in a separate section so that when creating a service instance it's clear which fields need to be filled out for successfull creation
The mandatory field detection doesn't catch all of them. For example, in VSHNNextcloud, some mandatory fields are not properly marked as mandatory, even when defined in the API spec: spec.parameters.service.fqdn or spec.parameters.service.collabora.*.

## Stories _As a user, I want to have a meaningful service configuration form in regards to mandatory fields._ ## Implementation Notes * Show all mandatory fields in a separate section so that when creating a service instance it's clear which fields need to be filled out for successfull creation * The mandatory field detection doesn't catch all of them. For example, in VSHNNextcloud, some mandatory fields are not properly marked as mandatory, even when defined in the API spec: `spec.parameters.service.fqdn` or `spec.parameters.service.collabora.*`.

tobru added the

enhancement

label 2025-07-17 12:37:19 +00:00

tobru added this to the Development Planning project 2025-07-17 12:37:19 +00:00

rixx referenced this issue

2025-09-04 11:15:19 +00:00

Fix mandatory field detection #175

rixx commented

2025-09-04 11:22:47 +00:00

Member

I fixed the mandatory field detection in the PR.

However, I have concerns regarding the grouping of all mandatory fields in the main section: This would remove fields from their context, making the form harder to parse, I think. In the Nextcloud case, for example, both of the Collabora fields are required – but if there was a third Collabora setting that was optional, it would now be placed away from the other two (required) fields.

Alternative options could be to jump to required fields that are still missing when users attempt to submit the form, and/or to add a star to tabs containing mandatory fields. We could also consider moving away from the tab concept and instead use accordions (details/summary elements) and auto-expand all that contain manadatory fields (which would allow browsers to auto-scroll to missing fields).

Lmk what you think – happy to implement what you think is best, just wanted to raise the concerns I saw when starting to implement the separated mandatory fields.

I fixed the mandatory field detection in the PR. However, I have concerns regarding the grouping of all mandatory fields in the main section: This would remove fields from their context, making the form harder to parse, I think. In the Nextcloud case, for example, both of the Collabora fields are required – but if there was a third Collabora setting that was optional, it would now be placed away from the other two (required) fields. Alternative options could be to jump to required fields that are still missing when users attempt to submit the form, and/or to add a star to tabs containing mandatory fields. We could also consider moving away from the tab concept and instead use accordions (details/summary elements) and auto-expand all that contain manadatory fields (which would allow browsers to auto-scroll to missing fields). Lmk what you think – happy to implement what you think is best, just wanted to raise the concerns I saw when starting to implement the separated mandatory fields.

tobru commented

2025-09-04 13:27:20 +00:00

Author

Owner

Thanks for the input. I propose we go with a star in the tab where there are mandatory fields and make the mandatory fields visually stand out a bit more than just a star which might be easily overlooked.

rixx commented

2025-09-05 12:52:49 +00:00

Member

Red stars in tab names + more prominent styling for mandatory fields in CRD forms is now in #175.

tobru closed this issue

2025-09-05 13:50:38 +00:00

Rows
Columns

Service Configuration Form Mandatory Field Handling #156

Stories

Implementation Notes