Add empty body as default new input on Job inspector

[jyeshe]

Description

This PR adds an empty body {} for the creation of new input on the job inspector.

Closes #2952

Validation steps

1. Access the job inspector without any additional query params.
2. The {} is suggested as basic dataclip for start and to create a new work order.
3. Create a new workorder and notice the Rerun button is enabled.
4. Select another job and use an existing non-empty dataclip to create a new work order.
5. After running click on Create a new input and the empty dataclip is suggested.

Additional notes for the reviewer

Notice that if you copy a link of a run to follow it and this run has a wiped input dataclip the empty dataclip is NOT suggested to honor the fact that this run does NOT have any dataclip.

AI Usage

Please disclose how you've used AI in this work (it's cool, we just want to know!):

• Code generation (copilot but not intellisense)
• Learning or fact checking
• Strategy / design
• Optimisation / refactoring
• Translation / spellchecking / doc gen
• Other
• I have not used AI

You can read more details in our Responsible AI Policy

Pre-submission checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I have implemented and tested all related authorization policies. (e.g., :owner, :admin, :editor, :viewer)
• I have updated the changelog.
• I have ticked a box in "AI usage" in this PR

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.60%. Comparing base (100e5af) to head (bc5e637).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2982      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.61%   91.60%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         346      346              
  Lines       12744    12745       +1     
==========================================
  Hits        11675    11675              
- Misses       1069     1070       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[midigofrank]

Hey @jyeshe , great job!

I'm a little concerned about the multiple if statements introduced. I think we should only have this in one place, in the changeset: https://github.com/OpenFn/lightning/blob/main/lib/lightning/workorders/manual.ex#L35

    ...
    |> validate_required([:project, :job, :created_by, :workflow])
    |> then(fn changeset -> 
       if get_change(changeset, :body) |> is_nil() do
          put_change(changeset, :body, "{}")
       else
          changeset
       end
    end)
    |> remove_body_if_dataclip_present()
    ...

Also, is there a reason why we can't always just build the manual workorder with the created_by: current_user. The user who is logged in is the only person who can initiate this right? I don't understand why we conditionally pass this in.

[midigofrank]

Why are we adding the created_by only if body == {} ?
I can see in the above block we are already passing in a user: current_user, is it any different from created_by?

[jyeshe]

When the user accepts the suggestion of the empty body, the user is the creator of the dataclip. This is not needed when the user types the input but without typing it is.
I would refactor the existing validation that checks about this created_by but once this is a huge module that handle many cases I am leaving it do it after some prioritization.

[jyeshe]

Hey @jyeshe , great job!

I'm a little concerned about the multiple if statements introduced.

Hi @midigofrank I appreciate your concern once this is a module that handles tens of possibilities.
However notice that there are only 2 situations where the default body is handled.

1. for dataclip change (it shall suggest the {} when the user selects "Create new input")
2. for the show that also calls Manual.new , in the same one that you've recently added the conditions to handle previous jobs.

Also, is there a reason why we can't always just build the manual workorder with the created_by: current_user. The user who is logged in is the only person who can initiate this right? I don't understand why we conditionally pass this in.

It is passed because the user is not explicitly typing an input but accepting the suggestion when creating a work order with it.

[midigofrank]

@jyeshe I get that the user is not explicitly setting the input, but does it really matter now that we have a default input anyway.

[jyeshe]

@jyeshe I get that the user is not explicitly setting the input, but does it really matter now that we have a default input anyway.

It's required field. Here is the validation I was referring to:
https://github.com/OpenFn/lightning/blob/default-wo-dataclip/lib%2Flightning_web%2Flive%2Fworkflow_live%2Fedit.ex#L2172-L2173

But I agree with you that we should find a way to make it more maintainable. Not only in regards to the creation but a full refactor breaking the LV into components and helpers.

[midigofrank]

Aaah, I see. Can't we just change that line to Enum.empty?(manual_run_form.source.errors) ? 😅 . Because from now on, we always have the created_by field

[jyeshe]

Aaah, I see. Can't we just change that line to Enum.empty?(manual_run_form.source.errors) ? 😅 . Because from now on, we always have the created_by field

That's what I wanted but do you remember the request (: ? But to be honest, the more I tested the more I saw have many scenarios the editor can handle so I think it's a responsible take to just satisfy the required condition instead of ignore it.

[jyeshe]

@stuartc as you're resuming this, please notice my last commit shows that with an empty body on the schema it is not shown on the input and the create button is disabled:

If you feel that you are also spending extra time on this I would suggest us to go with the commit 882d1f0 that handles the empty body in explicit way satisfying the requirement. I would only complement it by adding the created_by to always be set.