fix(workflow-form): hold a rebuild that arrives while typing instead of dropping it - #8499
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Backport auto-label reportThis
|
Contributor
Automated Reviewer SuggestionsBased on the
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Changes recommended
The deferred callback can trigger duplicate rebuilds, and the HostListener wiring lacks rendered coverage.
Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.
Pull request overview
Defers Form View rebuilds during text entry while allowing immediate rebuilds for non-text controls.
Changes:
- Classifies text-like versus click-only inputs.
- Runs deferred rebuilds after focus leaves text controls.
- Adds unit coverage for compilation and binding rebuild paths.
File summaries
| File | Description |
|---|---|
workflow-form.component.ts |
Implements input classification and deferred rebuilding. |
workflow-form.component.spec.ts |
Tests deferred rebuild behavior and checkbox focus. |
Review details
- Files reviewed: 2/2 changed files
- Comments generated: 2
- Review effort level: Balanced
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #8499 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 93.69% 93.69%
Complexity 4826 4826
=========================================
Files 1209 1209
Lines 49871 49881 +10
Branches 6099 6102 +3
=========================================
+ Hits 46727 46737 +10
Misses 1652 1652
Partials 1492 1492
*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
yangzhang75
force-pushed
the
fix/form-rebuild-while-typing
branch
from
September 11, 2026 02:05
c017314 to
05c752c
Compare
…of dropping it The Form View skips rebuilding its input cards while the reader is typing, so a rebuild cannot throw away a half-entered value. Two things were wrong with the skip. It counted any focused INPUT as typing, tick boxes included: ticking a property in the step panel focuses the tick box, so the rebuild that should add the card was skipped and the tick looked like it did nothing. And a skipped rebuild was simply dropped: a schema refresh that landed while someone was typing never reached the cards until something else happened to rebuild them. A tick box, radio or button is no longer typing (only text-like inputs, textareas, selects and content-editables are), and a rebuild that does arrive mid-typing is held and runs once the focus leaves the text control, decided a tick after focusout so tabbing to the next text field keeps it held. Closes apache#8497. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVvP3ttj22f9LB4p9u2anY
yangzhang75
force-pushed
the
fix/form-rebuild-while-typing
branch
from
September 11, 2026 02:30
05c752c to
e99b9f2
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
/request-review: @mengw15 |
yangzhang75
added a commit
to yangzhang75/texera
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2026
The workspace menu's export test module-mocked the CommonJS file-saver
package (vi.mock("file-saver")). Under the Angular unit-test builder that
call ends up inside the built spec chunk rather than at its top level
(Vitest warns about it on every platform), and once this stack shifted the
shared chunk graph the mock stopped applying on the Windows leg: the real
saveAs ran and the spy saw 0 calls (7 of the last 8 Windows runs on apache#8455
and apache#8456, while main and apache#8499 pass).
Route the download through the existing injectable FileSaverService, as
the dashboard downloads already do, and stub that with TestBed, which does
not depend on mock hoisting. No behaviour change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVvP3ttj22f9LB4p9u2anY
yangzhang75
added a commit
to yangzhang75/texera
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2026
The workspace menu's export test module-mocked the CommonJS file-saver
package (vi.mock("file-saver")). Under the Angular unit-test builder that
call ends up inside the built spec chunk rather than at its top level
(Vitest warns about it on every platform), and once this stack shifted the
shared chunk graph the mock stopped applying on the Windows leg: the real
saveAs ran and the spy saw 0 calls (7 of the last 8 Windows runs on apache#8455
and apache#8456, while main and apache#8499 pass).
Route the download through the existing injectable FileSaverService, as
the dashboard downloads already do, and stub that with TestBed, which does
not depend on mock hoisting. No behaviour change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVvP3ttj22f9LB4p9u2anY
yangzhang75
added a commit
to yangzhang75/texera
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2026
The workspace menu's export test module-mocked the CommonJS file-saver
package (vi.mock("file-saver")). Under the Angular unit-test builder that
call ends up inside the built spec chunk rather than at its top level
(Vitest warns about it on every platform), and once this stack shifted the
shared chunk graph the mock stopped applying on the Windows leg: the real
saveAs ran and the spy saw 0 calls (7 of the last 8 Windows runs on apache#8455
and apache#8456, while main and apache#8499 pass).
Route the download through the existing injectable FileSaverService, as
the dashboard downloads already do, and stub that with TestBed, which does
not depend on mock hoisting. No behaviour change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVvP3ttj22f9LB4p9u2anY
yangzhang75
added a commit
to yangzhang75/texera
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2026
The workspace menu's export test module-mocked the CommonJS file-saver
package (vi.mock("file-saver")). Under the Angular unit-test builder that
call ends up inside the built spec chunk rather than at its top level
(Vitest warns about it on every platform), and once this stack shifted the
shared chunk graph the mock stopped applying on the Windows leg: the real
saveAs ran and the spy saw 0 calls (7 of the last 8 Windows runs on apache#8455
and apache#8456, while main and apache#8499 pass).
Route the download through the existing injectable FileSaverService, as
the dashboard downloads already do, and stub that with TestBed, which does
not depend on mock hoisting. No behaviour change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVvP3ttj22f9LB4p9u2anY
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this PR?
Closes #8497. The Form View skips rebuilding its input cards while the reader is typing, so a rebuild cannot throw away a half-entered value (from #8437). Two things were wrong with that skip.
INPUTas typing, tick boxes included. Ticking a property in the step panel focuses the tick box, so the rebuild that should add the card was skipped and the tick looked like it did nothing until something else rebuilt the page (the way feat(gui): author the Form View in place with an edit mode #8455's edit mode surfaces it).Now only text-like inputs, textareas, selects and content-editables count as typing, and a rebuild that does arrive mid-typing is held and runs once the focus leaves the text control: a
focusouthost listener decides one tick later, so tabbing to the next text field keeps it held while any other focus change runs it. Both subscribers (compilation state, form-binding changes) go through the onerebuildFormOrDefer.#8455 carries the same change so it stays self-contained and testable on its own; whichever merges first, the other rebases and the duplicate hunk disappears.
Any related issues, documentation, discussions?
Closes #8497. Found while verifying #8455 on a flag-on instance (parent #8011).
How was this PR tested?
Unit tests (vitest): a focused tick box is not typing; a held rebuild runs once on focusout for both the compilation and the binding stream; it stays held when the focus only moves to another text field; a focusout with nothing held rebuilds nothing; a queued focusout callback does not rebuild a second time when the control that took the focus already rebuilt (the tick box case). The rendered spec dispatches a real bubbling
focusoutfrom a control inside the page and asserts the host listener drains the held rebuild. Each was checked to fail with its half of the fix removed, including removing the@HostListenerdecorator. Full suite passes (5780), changed lines fully covered, eslint, prettier and the production (AOT) build pass.In a headless browser against a dev server built from this branch: typing a value into an exposed input and tabbing out keeps the value through the held rebuild, with no console errors and every autosave answering 200. The tick-box path was exercised the same way on #8455, which carries the identical change: the card follows the tick within a second, in both directions.
Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
Yes. Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Fable 5.1, Anthropic). Co-authored with Claude, reviewed line by line by the author before submission.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVvP3ttj22f9LB4p9u2anY