Refine the 'Users' Manage Jenkins page

[janfaracik]

This PR refines the 'Users' Manage Jenkins page.

What's new?

• Refined table
  • No more model links for usernames, now has an overflow menu
• 'Add user' dialog has been added, very rough for now
• Content refined

Testing done

• Users show in table
• Still possible to delete users
• Possible to create users
• Validation appears

Screenshots (UI changes only)

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After (dialog validation)

Proposed changelog entries

• Refine the 'Users' Manage Jenkins page

Proposed changelog category

/label web-ui,rfe

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

• The issue, if it exists, is well-described.
• The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
• There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
• New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
• New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
• UI changes do not introduce regressions when enforcing the current default rules of Content Security Policy Plugin. In particular, new or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
• For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
• For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@jenkinsci/sig-ux

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

• There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
• Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
• Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
• Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
• If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
• If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, be a Bug or Improvement, and either the issue or pull request must be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered.

[timja]

If you want to go further a card approach would be possible.

Username may not need to be displayed if full name is set or at least de-emphased.

Configure could be a pencil for edit.

[janfaracik]

If you want to go further a card approach would be possible.

Username may not need to be displayed if full name is set or at least de-emphased.

Configure could be a pencil for edit.

I would definitely move to cards - we'd lose sorting however - not sure how useful sorting is for Users but something to consider.

[timja]

I would definitely move to cards - we'd lose sorting however - not sure how useful sorting is for Users but something to consider.

i'd have a sorted list by default and then a filter and not worry about users sorting on different columns I think

[timja]

@jenkinsci/core-security-review could you take a look at this please?

[timja]

LGTM in testing, one minor issue from a typo.

One oddity is that the validation is only invoked on submission whereas most of jenkins validates on blur. This seems consistent with how it worked before though so not an issue.

---

What's the reason for needing the wizard? Is for the validation?

[timja]

I think this should be documented in the design library: https://weekly.ci.jenkins.io/design-library/dialogs/

[janfaracik]

Absolutely.

[timja]

reminder @janfaracik

[janfaracik]

What's the reason for needing the wizard? Is for the validation?

Holdover from Credentials/ground work for implementing wizards in core/good basis for these fancy dialogs.