Browser/Plugin improvements: counting nodes, ordering and Nodes section at top/bottom

[rNoz]

What am I doing?

Providing some tweaks to Sabre\DAV\Browser\Plugin.php:

• showing the number of nodes
• ordering by last modified datetime and then by displayPath.
• Nodes section is displayed at the bottom if the number of nodes are greater than 20 (considering UX).

Example with this PR:

1. When accessing a collection with more than 20 nodes (e.g., calendar)

2. When traversing collections with <=20 nodes, so it is comfortable and quick to jump from collections as it is the most used action in these types of resources.

3. When there are no nodes, there is no "Nodes (0)" section generated. Zoomed out:

4. When accessing a collection with more than 20 nodes (e.g., addressbook). Zoomed out:

Why?

More context: issue

I have added a test to evaluate the new compareNodes protected function, as I didn't see a way to easily replace lastmodified values for a set of files and just parsing the table rows of the response body. So I am using reflection to verify all the possibilities when comparing.

Originally, I had another function (see below) to evaluate specifically the counting of nodes, but I think it will be fine just using what is provided by the parent::setUp() + setUp (3 nodes).

public function testCollectionNodes()
{
    $dir = $this->server->tree->getNodeForPath('dir2');
    $dir->createDirectory('subdir2');
    $dir->createDirectory('subdir1');
    $dir->createFile('file2');
    $dir->createFile('file1');

    $request = new HTTP\Request('GET', '/dir2');
    $this->server->httpRequest = ($request);
    $this->server->exec();

    $body = $this->response->getBodyAsString();
    self::assertTrue(false !== strpos($body, 'Nodes (4)'), $body);
    self::assertTrue(false !== strpos($body, '<a href="/dir2/subdir1/">'));
}

All passing:

> phpunit --configuration tests/phpunit.xml tests
PHPUnit 9.6.21 by Sebastian Bergmann and contributors.

....SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS   61 / 1646 (  3%)
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS............  122 / 1646 (  7%)
.............................................................  183 / 1646 ( 11%)
.............................................................  244 / 1646 ( 14%)
.............................................................  305 / 1646 ( 18%)
.............................................................  366 / 1646 ( 22%)
.............................................................  427 / 1646 ( 25%)
.............................................................  488 / 1646 ( 29%)
.............................................................  549 / 1646 ( 33%)
.............................................................  610 / 1646 ( 37%)
.............................................................  671 / 1646 ( 40%)
.........SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS........................  732 / 1646 ( 44%)
.............................................................  793 / 1646 ( 48%)
.................................................SSSS........  854 / 1646 ( 51%)
.............................................................  915 / 1646 ( 55%)
.............................................................  976 / 1646 ( 59%)
........................................SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS..... 1037 / 1646 ( 63%)
............................................................. 1098 / 1646 ( 66%)
..........................................SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. 1159 / 1646 ( 70%)
............................................................. 1220 / 1646 ( 74%)
............................................................. 1281 / 1646 ( 77%)
............................................................. 1342 / 1646 ( 81%)
............................................................. 1403 / 1646 ( 85%)
............................................................. 1464 / 1646 ( 88%)
............................................................. 1525 / 1646 ( 92%)
......SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS............................. 1586 / 1646 ( 96%)
............................................................  1646 / 1646 (100%)

Time: 00:06.069, Memory: 48.00 MB

OK, but incomplete, skipped, or risky tests!
Tests: 1646, Assertions: 2915, Skipped: 198.

Let me know if something else is necessary ;)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.18182% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.23%. Comparing base (ed901a9) to head (a1c5ea2).
Report is 9 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/DAV/Browser/Plugin.php	98.18%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #1575   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     97.23%   97.23%           
- Complexity     2836     2843    +7     
=========================================
  Files           175      175           
  Lines          9028     9043   +15     
=========================================
+ Hits           8778     8793   +15     
  Misses          250      250           

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

[phil-davis]

@rNoz php-cs-fixer has some minor formatting required.

https://github.com/sabre-io/dav/actions/runs/12096265416/job/34109861744?pr=1575

You can run it locally composer cs-fixer to see what it does, then commit the changes and push.

[phil-davis]

Can you add a test case for when there are more than 20 nodes?
That will exercise this code, and the test can check that the Nodes section comes down the bottom of the HTML.

[rNoz]

Sure. Created testCollectionWithManyNodesGetSubdir. I have also updated the normal case (testCollectionGetRoot) to check that is at the top.

[rNoz]

@phil-davis I needed to update the cs-fixer changes manually, as I have php 8.3 and it warns it is better to execute it with php <= 8.0, and installing that in my system is getting some troubles. I couldn't verify if all is fixed, as the Action/workflow didn't run automatically.

[phil-davis]

@DeepDiver1975 @staabm can either (or both) review this?
Any objections to this sort of rearrangement of the browser plugin rendering?

[staabm]

I have no strong opinion on such changes.
looks useful, but I can't judge how this plugin is used in the wild.

I won't have time to look into more details for a few days