-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
No Code Experience #6532
Comments
Completely agree with this. A lot of people on my project team have a difficult time figuring out how to use the product the first time as the low code way is not presented as the default way of implementing flows. Another thing to add is the UI for the low code editor constantly suffers from issues where the UI does not match the actual task properties properly, as task properties are constantly being updated / deprecated. For example :
I've reported many of these issues in the past but it might be fixed in one patch and then broken again in the next, as every time a property is changed the frontend also has to be updated. I haven't looked into the source code at all and I know this could be a huge change, but perhaps a more coupled, dynamic way for the low code editor UI implementation could be a solution? For example, when a task's schema is updated on the backend, rather than the frontend manually having to update the property, you could read the task's schema to code-generate the necessary low code editor UI automatically, and add this to the CICD pipeline so the frontend UI is always in alignment with the backend task schema, and the backend task schema is always the "single source of truth". I don't know about the feasibility of this, but it's just a suggestion. I don't know if there is a reliable way of reading the Java annotations and getting the task schema, but if necessary you could always just parse the file string to do it. |
Definitely @johnkm516 thanks for this comment !
|
List of missing things and issues after first development iteration:
Additional feedback from Nicolas:
Question from Nico that needs a bit more opinions
The validation at the bottom is for the task level, and the one on the top is for the flow level. Do we want to keep it like that is the question for product team. |
|
Below is a sorted and merged list of all comments/feedback so far. Done:
Questions needing answer before proceeding:
The validation at the bottom is for the task level, and the one on the top is for the flow level. Do we want to keep it like that is the question for product team. |
Copying the list from the comment above just to have it a bit more visible. Still to be done:
|
@MilosPaunovic closing this one in favor of #7050. Also one issue will be created per issue raised during QA (linked into the later) |
Feature description
Motivation
The existing no code editor, now outdated after more than two years without updates, remains cumbersome [despite recent fixes](#4581). It remains unintuitive and non UX friendly.
Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of current flaws:
Next Steps
0.21 - Highlights
Figma Design
https://www.figma.com/design/ew0uXk0NRXJ2NBBJTNe2n1/01_UI?node-id=5038-53766&t=kmdYYEvUxUFrxssi-1
0.XX - Follow Up
Change the “Editor” name by “Edit” #6533
Add No Code onboarding #6558
Miscellaneous:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: