DataViews: Improve UX around filter customization of bundled data views

[Souptik2001]

What?

Improve UX around filter customization of bundled data views

Why?

Addressed first three points of - #60468

The UX of applying filters on a bundled view can be a little confusing.
For example we are on the "Scheduled" view -

• From there I can remove the "Scheduled" status filter.
• Also add other status filters.

But doing those we will still be on the "Scheduled" bundled view page. So, seeing that screen there is no relation between the filters applied and the view.

Also when we click on the "Reset" button when on any bundled view, it resets all the filter without respecting the view.

How?

• Hide the filter option which is pre-applied by the view.
• Hide the "Reset" button when no other filter is applied other than the pre-applied filter by view.
• When "Reset" button is clicked reset the filter to the view pre-applied filter state.

Testing Instructions

Check the screencast below or the points written -

• Go to site-editor.
• Open "Pages".
• On the "All pages" view, we will see all the filters are present.
• Now go to some other view like "Scheduled".
• We will see that the status filter disappears - neither in the apply filter dropdown or the applied filters chips.
• The RESET button will be also not visible by default.
• Now apply any other filter, like author. You will see the "Reset" button becomes visible.
• When you click on the "Reset" button all other filters gets reverted, except filters applied by the view.

Testing Instructions for Keyboard

Screenshots or screencast

Screen.Recording.2024-05-31.at.12.55.05.AM.mov

[github-actions]

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the props-bot label.

If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message.

Co-authored-by: Souptik2001 <souptik@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: jameskoster <jameskoster@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: jasmussen <joen@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: oandregal <oandregal@git.wordpress.org>

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.

[github-actions]

👋 Thanks for your first Pull Request and for helping build the future of Gutenberg and WordPress, @Souptik2001! In case you missed it, we'd love to have you join us in our Slack community.

If you want to learn more about WordPress development in general, check out the Core Handbook full of helpful information.

[jameskoster]

Thank you for the continued energy on these issues @Souptik2001 ❤️

This is working well for me on the Pages views, however I'm seeing errors on Templates and Patterns pages.

[Souptik2001]

Ahhh it's a miss from my side. Sorry, I missed to test it. 🙇

Fixed it now. Now the templates should also behave the same way as we have implemented for pages!

Thanks @jameskoster! Please let me know if there are any other issues. 🙌

[jameskoster]

Thanks for the update 👍

We've most likely missed the boat for 6.6 now, so this will end up being a 6.7 consideration. That may mean delaying the merge a little, but that gives us time to get more feedback from @WordPress/gutenberg-design.

[Souptik2001]

Gotcha! Thanks @jameskoster! 🙇

Will be keeping an eye here and will make any change as required.. 🙌

[jameskoster]

Since this will now be a 6.7 item, I think it's good to merge and begin gathering more feedback, pending a code review,

[jasmussen]

@DaniGuardiola I pinged you on a related issue, would you be up for helping here as well? Thank you.

[oandregal]

Hi @Souptik2001 thanks for preparing the PR and the patience in waiting for feedback.

I've taken a look at this and prepared an alternative at #65264 Thought it'd be less intrusive that pushing to this PR. You still should be credited as a co-author there.

[Souptik2001]

Sure! thanks a lot @oandregal !

[oandregal]

I've taken a look at this and prepared an alternative at #65264

65264 was closed, so I prepared a different alternative at #65295

[noisysocks]

Closing in favour of #65295 which was merged.