UI: Validate inserted values in numeric global settings

[bernardodemarco]

Description

Currently, when changing the Decimal, Number and Range global settings values through the UI, CloudStack does not validate if the inserted values are numeric. Additionally, when letters are entered in the inputs, a message indicating that the setting value was successfully updated is returned to the operators, which does not effectively happen.

Therefore, this PR proposes to verify the values that are entered in those input fields. If non-numeric values are inserted, they will be ignored. Furthermore, it is still possible to use special keys, such as Ctrl and Alt, in order to make use of keyboard shortcuts.

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• build/CI
• test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

• Verified that in Decimal and Range global settings it is only possible to enter digits and the period (.) character.
• Verified that in Number global settings it is only possible to enter digits.
• Verified that in Decimal, Number and Range global settings it is still possible to make use of keyboard shortcuts with special keys.

[bernardodemarco]

@blueorangutan ui

[blueorangutan]

@bernardodemarco a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 15.14%. Comparing base (0a77eb7) to head (cf6398f).
Report is 3 commits behind head on 4.19.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               4.19   #10279   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     15.14%   15.14%           
- Complexity    11283    11284    +1     
=========================================
  Files          5408     5408           
  Lines        473823   473832    +9     
  Branches      57824    57829    +5     
=========================================
+ Hits          71764    71775   +11     
+ Misses       394037   394033    -4     
- Partials       8022     8024    +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.29% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	15.87% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[blueorangutan]

UI build: ✔️
Live QA URL: https://qa.cloudstack.cloud/simulator/pr/10279 (QA-JID-533)

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm and tested in QA, one minor nit: the period is not localised (Dutch uses comma ','. and this is not allowed in decimal fields like overprovisioning.

[bernardodemarco]

clgtm and tested in QA, one minor nit: the period is not localised (Dutch uses comma ','. and this is not allowed in decimal fields like overprovisioning.

@DaanHoogland, thanks for testing.

Yes, Portuguese also uses comma. However, the backend has a validation that does not accept it, for example:

(acs-all-in-one) 🙉 > update configuration name="cpu.overprovisioning.factor" value="2,55"
🙈 Error: (HTTP 431, error code 4350) Value [2,55] is not a valid [class java.lang.Float].

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm and tested in QA, one minor nit: the period is not localised (Dutch uses comma ','. and this is not allowed in decimal fields like overprovisioning.

@DaanHoogland, thanks for testing.

Yes, Portuguese also uses comma. However, the backend has a validation that does not accept it, for example:

(acs-all-in-one) 🙉 > update configuration name="cpu.overprovisioning.factor" value="2,55"
🙈 Error: (HTTP 431, error code 4350) Value [2,55] is not a valid [class java.lang.Float].

yes, no issue with this PR for sure, just a remark/not to self to maybe deal with in the future (or not)

[vishesh92]

clgtm. Tested and works as expected.