BUG: password field placeholder for account configuration page in UCC

[qinshuang1998]

Description

Bug Description

When creating or editing an account on the Configuration page generated by the UCC library framework, the password input field is always blank, regardless of whether the account is new or existing. This causes confusion for users who cannot distinguish between an unset password (new account) and an existing password (edit account).

Expected Behavior

• When creating a new account, the password input should be empty.
• When editing an existing account, the password input should display a masked placeholder ("******") if a password is already set, otherwise remain empty.

Current Behavior

• The password field is always blank, both when creating a new account and when editing an existing one.

What UCC version are you using?

splunk-add-on-ucc-framework==5.69.1

Additional System Info

Python 3.9

[hetangmodi-crest]

Hi @qinshuang1998, I have few questions mentioned below based on the issue description

1. A user who would be able to see the page with passwords would at least require list_storage_passwords capability and edit_storage_passwords or admin_all_objects. Is there any assumption or scenario that users with such capabilities would think that the encrypted field is not filled?
2. The encrypted fields were shown blank to not contain the sensitive information, not even the mask. Hence, if the user clicks on "Save" button (intentional or unintentional), they are asked to fill all the required fields in the form. If UCC shows asterisks, users can have a presumption that their old password is retained and hence they should be good to save the form.
3. If validations aren't present for the encrypted fields, there are chances that the actual value is replaced by the mask, and hence the add-on malfunctions. Do you think of a safety net in such a scenario? Perhaps setting only for view but not for any other operation.

[qinshuang1998]

Hi @hetangmodi-crest, about your thoughtful questions, i think

1. acknowledge this, but I also believe that clear and logical UI design is equally important, especially in environments with multiple team members managing configurations, if Manager A has made certain settings while Manager B remains unaware, the blank input field may lead to misunderstandings and misoperations by Manager B.
2. the mask itself is not sensitive, and if a user inadvertently submits the masked value, the UI should be able to ignore it.
3. thanks for the correction. I've fixed this issue in the latest commit.

[hetangmodi-crest]

Closing this Issue as the PR containing this feature is merged, and would be available in next release.