Advanced storage options #917
Conversation
matthew-hagemann
force-pushed
the
advanced-storage-options
branch
from
73120e6 to
424f672
Compare
|
@anasereijo Let me know your thoughts implementation 🙂 I wasn't sure re: the |
matthew-hagemann
force-pushed
the
advanced-storage-options
branch
3 times, most recently
from
86969e0 to
66bdacd
Compare
matthew-hagemann
force-pushed
the
advanced-storage-options
branch
from
5b8ffe0 to
142dc5f
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
matthew-hagemann
force-pushed
the
advanced-storage-options
branch
from
1dd7264 to
25718c8
Compare
|
Screen recording of the interaction 🙂 @anasereijo Screencast.From.2025-02-07.14-10-53.webm |
|
@matthew-hagemann I've been thinking about the use of the 'experimental' chip, and there's no way to avoid wrapping it (especially with translations). that said, I think we should wrap it properly to the next line aligned to the left
everything else is looking good! the interactions are working really nicely 👍 |
|
@matthew-hagemann actually, I have been thinking about this, and I wonder if it's possible to do something more like this instead: 
so the chip/label will be kept always at the top right corner. When the title is too long, wrap it to a second line. |
| final target = model | ||
| .getAllTargets() | ||
| .firstWhereOrNull((t) => t is GuidedStorageTargetReformat); | ||
|
|
||
| if (target == null) return const SizedBox(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We will need to generalize this logic here, since we can now see this option while a different guided target (one that is not GuidedStorageTargetReformat) is selected.
I've tested this with the win10-along-ubuntu machine config, where we get a Reformat and two Resize targets. The latter don't include the CORE_BOOT_PREFER_ENCRYPTED capability in neither allowed nor disallowed, so I think we should hide the option entirely in this case (currently it's shown and enabled, so continuing with the installation will lead to a crash, since we're sending a guided target response that includes an unsupported capability). At the same time we should make sure that the option is always present if it's included in one of those, but keep it disabled if the capability is disallowed.
P.S. I'd appreciate it if we could have some tests that cover those cases:
allowed:[..., CORE_BOOT_PREFER_ENCRYPTED, ...]-> tpm option is shown and enabledallowed:[...],disallowed:[..., CORE_BOOT_PREFER_ENCRYPTED, ...]-> tpm option is shown but disabled- neither
allowednordisallowedincludeCORE_BOOT_PREFER_ENCRYPTED-> tpm option is not shown
Breaking advanced storage options into its own page. Continuation of #858