fix: [M3-9085] - Miscellaneous masked data bugs and enhancements - #12003
Merged
mjac0bs merged 12 commits intoApr 14, 2025
Conversation
added 6 commits
April 9, 2025 09:14
added 3 commits
April 9, 2025 12:38
… pools, Domains, and Linode details
mjac0bs
commented
Apr 9, 2025
| /** | ||
| * Optionally specifies the length of the masked text to depending on data type (e.g. 'ipv4', 'ipv6', 'plaintext'); if not provided, will use a default length. | ||
| */ | ||
| maskedTextLength?: MaskableTextLength | number; |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The change here was to add the number type to remain consistent with the change to MaskableText.tsx's length prop.
Comment on lines
+28
to
+31
| * If true, the component is in controlled mode for text masking, meaning the parent component handles the visibility toggle. | ||
| * @default false | ||
| */ | ||
| masked?: boolean; | ||
| isMaskingControlled?: boolean; |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New prop to allow us to use a VisibilityIcon in a parent component to toggle the CopyTooltip's masked state. This was needed for the AccessRow IP addresses, where we have a Stack to group the StyledCopyIcon and the VisibilityIcon next to each other, visible even when there is a scroll bar.
| * Optionally specifies the length of the masked text to depending on data type (e.g. 'ipv4', 'ipv6', 'plaintext'); if not provided, will use a default length. | ||
| */ | ||
| length?: MaskableTextLength; | ||
| length?: MaskableTextLength | number; |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed the issue described for the Longview ProcessesTable.
mjac0bs
marked this pull request as ready for review
April 9, 2025 20:31
mjac0bs
requested review from
cpathipa and
pmakode-akamai
and removed request for
a team
April 9, 2025 20:31
pmakode-akamai
approved these changes
Apr 11, 2025
cpathipa
approved these changes
Apr 14, 2025
Cloud Manager UI test results🎉 540 passing tests on test run #5 ↗︎
|
This was referenced Apr 17, 2025
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.
Description 📝
This PR fixes a few known bugs:
<p> cannot appear as a descendant of <p> in MaskableText.This PR also provides one enhancement, which allows the user to toggle the masked data visibility icon for IP addresses on the Linode details page without having to scroll when the addresses are too long for the component. This was especially visible with IPv6 and doing so required a little reworking of how the
CopyTooltipwas handling masking.Changes 🔄
MaskableTextlengthprop to be any number (in addition to predefined values)Target release date 🗓️
4/22
Preview 📷
Screen.Recording.2025-04-09.at.1.19.03.PM.mov
How to test 🧪
Prerequisites
(How to setup test environment)
Reproduction steps
(How to reproduce the issue, if applicable)
Verification steps
(How to verify changes)
Author Checklists
As an Author, to speed up the review process, I considered 🤔
👀 Doing a self review
❔ Our contribution guidelines
🤏 Splitting feature into small PRs
➕ Adding a changeset
🧪 Providing/improving test coverage
🔐 Removing all sensitive information from the code and PR description
🚩 Using a feature flag to protect the release
👣 Providing comprehensive reproduction steps
📑 Providing or updating our documentation
🕛 Scheduling a pair reviewing session
📱 Providing mobile support
♿ Providing accessibility support
As an Author, before moving this PR from Draft to Open, I confirmed ✅