On 2/14/2013 6:30 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
If they are mutually exclusive, they probably should be separated using
radio buttons like this:
PAC: ( ) None
(o) Type:
[x] MS-PAC
[ ] PAD
You missed one option: nothing selected. It can be solved by adding '(
) Inherited' radio.
I wouldn't have guessed that :) I agree we should add the 'Inherited'
option.
Anyway, this design seems more user friendly for more general audience
than mine so I will implement it. The only problem with it is that one
have to come with new label for each group and empty value - can't be
inferred from metadata.
Is there any issue adding new labels at this point? Worst case we could
hard code the label now and add a translation later.
It might be better to use a composite widget of radio buttons and
checkboxes so we can reuse the code. Probably the definition will look
something like this:
{
name: 'ipakrbauthzdata',
type: 'radio',
Not sure if it should be radio, more like something new.
Right, probably the current radio widget can't do this. So either we
improve the radio widget or create something new.
label: ...,
options: [
{
label: ...,
value: 'NONE'
},
{
label: ...,
type: 'checkboxes',
Do you expect to be there something different than checkboxes, or do you
want it to do it this way for possible future customization.
Ideally it should be generic enough to combine any widgets. This might
be a common scenario somewhere else:
Something: ( ) Option 1
( ) Option 2
(o) Other: [something else ]
--
Endi S. Dewata
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
