Serval admin: Improve layout of draft job list for small screens

[marksvc]

Ideally we can show the content on one half of a 1920px wide screen. The full Serval build id is retained, which allows it to be searched on the page with Ctrl+F.

Un-wrapped:

One half of 1920px:

This change is 

[marksvc]

Set as 'testing-not-required'. I don't think it needs to use time there.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.91%. Comparing base (2e41d44) to head (03bf05d).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3545   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.91%   82.91%           
=======================================
  Files         605      605           
  Lines       36876    36876           
  Branches     6040     6045    +5     
=======================================
  Hits        30574    30574           
  Misses       5376     5376           
  Partials      926      926           

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

[Nateowami]

@Nateowami reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @marksvc)

---

-- commits line 2 at r1:
Can you write a clearer title?

---

src/SIL.XForge.Scripture/ClientApp/src/app/serval-administration/draft-jobs.component.html line 137 at r1 (raw file):

          <th mat-header-cell *matHeaderCellDef>Author</th>
          <td mat-cell *matCellDef="let row">
            <app-owner [ownerRef]="row.userId" [includeAvatar]="true"></app-owner>

I'm surprised you removed the timestamp from the owner component, rather removing the timestamp column from the table.

Your screenshots exaggerate how big of a difference the removal of the timestamp from the owner component makes, since they all say "me", whereas on production they won't (it still will make a big difference, just not as big).

Either way, I'd think you could reduce the width more through removing the timestamp column.

[marksvc]

Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Nateowami)

---

-- commits line 2 at r1:

Previously, Nateowami wrote…

Can you write a clearer title?

Yes. Depending on what you mean. Are you looking for a nuts-and-bolts statement like
"Remove date from and wrap Owner and build id, hide Status label on narrower screens in SA draft jobs"?

Or are you meaning "sa" is not clear? So,
"system administration: display draft jobs on narrower screen"

Or what are you meaning?

---

src/SIL.XForge.Scripture/ClientApp/src/app/serval-administration/draft-jobs.component.html line 137 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Nateowami wrote…

I'm surprised you removed the timestamp from the owner component, rather removing the timestamp column from the table.

Your screenshots exaggerate how big of a difference the removal of the timestamp from the owner component makes, since they all say "me", whereas on production they won't (it still will make a big difference, just not as big).

Either way, I'd think you could reduce the width more through removing the timestamp column.

I think of timestamp as one of the more important columns :-). But I guess it depends on what someone is looking for.
I would be inclined to change the timestamp to something more tidy, like

2025-12-31
12:34:56Z

or

2025-12-31
06:34:56 -0600

but I notice that no where else do we do that.

I don't want the timestamp to appear in the Owner component because it seems confusing to show the job start time as part of the user identifier. (It seems like a date there should mean when the user created their account or something.)

I put in a longer name for layout testing. What do you think about the layout shown now?

(0.5*1920px width shown)

[marksvc]

-- commits line 2 at r1:

Previously, marksvc wrote…

Yes. Depending on what you mean. Are you looking for a nuts-and-bolts statement like
"Remove date from and wrap Owner and build id, hide Status label on narrower screens in SA draft jobs"?

Or are you meaning "sa" is not clear? So,
"system administration: display draft jobs on narrower screen"

Or what are you meaning?

Oh, "sa: fit draft jobs info or narrower screen"?

[Nateowami]

@Nateowami reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @marksvc)

---

-- commits line 2 at r1:

Previously, marksvc wrote…

Oh, "sa: fit draft jobs info or narrower screen"?

[sorry; I wrote a followup but forgot to post it]

To elaborate: at a minimum, "sa" is ambiguous and unclear what it refers to. We have "system administration" and "serval administration" areas. I would probably suggest something like "Improve layout of draft job list for small screens" if you want to keep it really short, and include "Serval admin" if you don't care about being as brief as possible (I don't think brevity is that important).

[marksvc]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Nateowami)

---

-- commits line 2 at r1:

Previously, Nateowami wrote…

[sorry; I wrote a followup but forgot to post it]

To elaborate: at a minimum, "sa" is ambiguous and unclear what it refers to. We have "system administration" and "serval administration" areas. I would probably suggest something like "Improve layout of draft job list for small screens" if you want to keep it really short, and include "Serval admin" if you don't care about being as brief as possible (I don't think brevity is that important).

Thank you :). I wasn't even thinking about the "SA" ambiguity. And I see I even got mixed up in one of my examples in this thread.

[Nateowami]

@Nateowami reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @marksvc)