An alternate, more informative/complicated idea for the "imagine another column" mentioned in issue 1264

[markmi]

Prerequisites

• [yes] Have you checked for an existing issue describing your idea?

What is your proposal?

I presume here the context from 1264 without repeating it here.

Olivier Certner olce@freebsd.org 's wording for a more informative alternative with more uses of the search box supported:

QUOTE
Adding a status column to that list would be useful. It would say either:

• "Up-to-date" in case of an incremental build and the package already exists.
• Any of the already existing statuses ("Built", "Failed", "Skipped", "Ignored", "Fetched", "Remaining").
  With this, users can jump to the relevant status-specific table and consult the additional columns there (such as Log) for a specific port. This makes it easier to find the fate of a specific package by not having to search in all tables. We can then imagine refinements (a link automatically filling the search box of the right table and jumping to it), but already just having the status info seems valuable.

END QUOTE

What is the existing behavior, if any?

"Queued Ports" is a static indication of what port-packages were requested (with bulk -a usage leading to all port-packages being classified as Listed).

What is the motivation / use case for the change?

This was an alternative mentioned during the activity that lead to issue 1264's submittal. 1264 has a simpler, more static simplification listed.

Did you consider any alternatives?

See issue 1264. There I used just 2 static status texts, something like: "already built at start" vs. "not yet built at start". That would leave the table as something to be generated once up front instead of being dynamically updated as the bulk run progresses building port-packages.

Issue 1264 also referenced that as just a potential idea. Absent that, there is only the rename of Queued Ports to, say, "Build scope" to remove the ambiguity of queued counts on the page that are sometimes/commonly not the same.

Is this really a ports feature request?

The HTML for the page is from poudriere(-devel), so: no.

Example

(I'm not intending on making an example table, at least for now.)

Additional context

See issue #1264.