D15093: Add WireGuard capability.

[Bruce Anderson]

andersonbruce added a comment.


  Okay, I just uploaded changes for most of the rest of the comments but I would like to revisit a couple of earlier issues.
  The first is the SpinBoxes. As I said in another comment, I don't think that the SpinBoxes are appropriate for any of the entries and would like to return these to be plain LineEdit widgets. The smallest range for any of these is the port number box at 0-65535 and I don't think any of them will be entered using the SpinBox arrows so I think simple text entry is better from an HMI perspective.
  
  Secondly I would like to reconsider entry validation. Currently it is using Pino's suggestion of using Validators on each entry to not allow incorrect keys to be entered and I think this is a good approach but I don't think it is sufficient. Right now there are 5 items checked for validity on the main screen (plus a couple on the Advanced settings widget) which can be checked for validity and when they are all valid, the "Save" button is enabled.
  
  These are obviously different in that one tests to see if the entry is completely valid while the other only checks to see if it can still be made to be complete and valid. My problem is that if there are five things that need to be checked and only one bit of information (whether the Save button is enabled or disabled) to indicate to the user that there is a problem and no indication of which element might be in error.
  
  I would like to add some type of indicator on each entry line to indicate whether that particular line is valid so if the user has entered: "BBBB:0:1223:" for an IPv6 address (which is not valid) and all the other lines are valid, the user would be able to see immediately which line they need to look at to go forward. This was the idea behind my initial code which changed the background color of widgets to indicate validity. I realize that there are problems with this approach so I would like to come up with some other means to supply this information to the user. I've done three mockups of some possibilities: F6278509: Y-N_Lables.png <https://phabricator.kde.org/F6278509>
  
  F6278513: EnabledCheckBox.png <https://phabricator.kde.org/F6278513>
  
  F6278516: DisabledCheckBox.png <https://phabricator.kde.org/F6278516>
  The difference between the last two is whether the CheckBoxes are enabled or not. I think that the enabled CheckBoxes is the best looking although it requires a little more programming because since it would be utilized as a strictly output widget I would have to intercept any clicks on the check box and ensure that it stayed in the correct state.
  
  Any comments would be appreciated.

REPOSITORY
  R116 Plasma Network Management Applet

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D15093

To: andersonbruce, #plasma, jgrulich, pino
Cc: acrouthamel, K900, pino, lbeltrame, ngraham, plasma-devel, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20180922/7a9fa377/attachment-0001.html>