ui: Create and use collapsible notices component

[kaxcode]

• Creates CollapsibleNotices component
• Restructure the acceptance tests folder for topology
• Adds testing for TProxy notices in Topology tab
• Use of CollapsibleNotices in Toplogy route when there are more than 2 Notices.

[kaxcode]

🙈 The conditional works but I had to duplicate the code in the {{else}}. LMK if you can think of a better way to format this. @johncowen

[johncowen]

Theres an option here to maybe make a computedProperty on the topology model

[johncowen]

Ok so I've had a proper look at this after our chat, I guess I can think of a couple of options:

1. I remember speaking to @freddygv about the all of these boolean type properties can quickly get out of hand, and I wondered if using some sort of state: "" with a predefined list of states might have been a better approach here? From the condition you've written here it looks like there are two states, I'm not sure if thats correct or not as I don't have enough context into the feature to know. This one is obviously necessitates a backend change, and it might not even be possible/might be a bit late in the game to be tweaking this, but it is an internal endpoint so maybe not?
2. If the booleans are this 'nuanced', it looks to me like this is just an or checking all four fields, which is more straightforwards that what you have here, and that also lines up with how you've written the conditionals below.

{{or 
  topology.DefaultAllow
  topology.FilteredByACLs
  topology.undefinedIntention
  topology.WildcardIntention
}}

Actually didn't we remove all the references to undefined?

Me personally I like number 2 more than the computed property option, as this is a view concern not a model one.

[kaxcode]

The 2nd option does not take into account that I have to have >2 notices to show that button. That's what I'm trying to capture in the conditionals I wrote. Grouping them all together in the or does not guarantee that use case.

[johncowen]

Ahhh, of course yeah I forgot about that 🤔

[johncowen]

Wonder if you could do something with compact or array_some 🤔

[johncowen]

Maybe this?

      {{#let (without false (array true true false false)) as |visibleNotices|}}
        {{if gt visibleNotices.length 2}}
          {{!-- make collapsable --}}
        {{/if}}
      {{/let}}

[kaxcode]

I've already moved the logic to a computed func in the model. Does that work?
I also just pushed renaming undefinedIntention to be notDefinedIntention.

[johncowen]

Sorry I had this sitting here this morning and I hadn't submitted the review, just realized you pushed the computed version! Sorry!

Anyway, read through and see what you think.

[johncowen]

Ok so I've had a proper look at this after our chat, I guess I can think of a couple of options:

1. I remember speaking to @freddygv about the all of these boolean type properties can quickly get out of hand, and I wondered if using some sort of state: "" with a predefined list of states might have been a better approach here? From the condition you've written here it looks like there are two states, I'm not sure if thats correct or not as I don't have enough context into the feature to know. This one is obviously necessitates a backend change, and it might not even be possible/might be a bit late in the game to be tweaking this, but it is an internal endpoint so maybe not?
2. If the booleans are this 'nuanced', it looks to me like this is just an or checking all four fields, which is more straightforwards that what you have here, and that also lines up with how you've written the conditionals below.

{{or 
  topology.DefaultAllow
  topology.FilteredByACLs
  topology.undefinedIntention
  topology.WildcardIntention
}}

Actually didn't we remove all the references to undefined?

Me personally I like number 2 more than the computed property option, as this is a view concern not a model one.

[johncowen]

LGTM! Especially, thanks for adding the docs for the new component!

There are a couple of things here we could potentially circle back and tweak, but fine to do that in a PR in the future at some point.