feat: recent unpaid bounties selection

[aegroto]

Description

Added an option to show only recent unpaid bounties. Fixes #1586

Screenshots

The current bounties selection shows both paid and unpaid bounties:

The introduced unpaid bounties option filters out paid bounties and show only available ones:

Additional Context

I have some concerns, mainly due to to my lack of experience in the project:

1. This is the first selection option that includes a space inside. May it be a source of problems in the future?
2. The additional selection has been implemented as a separate option in the dropdown menu. Is there a way to add it as an additional option, such as a checkbox, while showing the "bounties" results? That would be interesting but as of now the query is merely done in terms of the route.
3. The option has been added to the ITEM_TYPES constant. Should it be added to the ITEM_TYPES_USER as well? Where is this other constant used?

Checklist

Are your changes backwards compatible? Please answer below: Yes

On a scale of 1-10 how well and how have you QA'd this change and any features it might affect? Please answer below: 8, I have tested it manually but were unable to add automated tests.

For frontend changes: Tested on mobile? Please answer below: Yes, everything works.

Did you introduce any new environment variables? If so, call them out explicitly here: No

[ekzyis]

The additional selection has been implemented as a separate option in the dropdown menu. Is there a way to add it as an additional option, such as a checkbox, while showing the "bounties" results? That would be interesting but as of now the query is merely done in terms of the route.

Yes, this should be possible and I would prefer this a lot more than having another dedicated option:

_{using "active only" instead of simply "active" might be a bad decision}

We don't use dynamic checkboxes anywhere in this context afaik but we have dynamic dropdowns depending on what you selected in top. Maybe the code for them is inspiring.

[aegroto]

I have modified the widget to use a checkbox instead of a separate select option:

The dropdown is still redirected to "bounties", I believe the UX is fluid enough. Let me know what you think of this reworked version :)

[ekzyis]

Thank you, I will take a look tomorrow

[ekzyis]

Sorry, forgot about this yesterday. Will review now

[ekzyis]

Works great, thank you!

2024-11-17.23-43-58.mp4

However, I found some aesthetic issues in the frontend code, see suggestions.

[aegroto]

Hello, I totally agree with your review. I should've used a query param since the beginning, that was the most straightforward solution, sorry for that. I will correct the code and update the PR as soon as I can.

[aegroto]

Thanks for your suggestion, I have applied them to my branch and tested that everything keeps working. I have decided to refactor variablesFunc adding explicit conditionals to avoid the nested ternary operators, but let me know if you prefer to keep with the previous version.

[gitguardian]

️✅ There are no secrets present in this pull request anymore.

If these secrets were true positive and are still valid, we highly recommend you to revoke them.
Once a secret has been leaked into a git repository, you should consider it compromised, even if it was deleted immediately.
Find here more information about risks.

---

^{_{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}}

[ekzyis]

I have decided to refactor variablesFunc adding explicit conditionals to avoid the nested ternary operators, but let me know if you prefer to keep with the previous version.

Thank you, that was a good decision!

Looks good to me, I also tested again.

ignore the warning from @GitGuardian, the new "secrets" we pushed are only for local nodes running on regtest

Oh, I think we should use router.replace instead of router.push but I need to check

[aegroto]

@ekzyis Thanks for your feedback. I am curious, why would prefer to use replace instead of push? Anyway, once you take the decision I will update the PR accordingly.

[ekzyis]

@ekzyis Thanks for your feedback. I am curious, why would prefer to use replace instead of push? Anyway, once you take the decision I will update the PR accordingly.

Because clicking the checkbox should not push a new URL to prevent backward navigation, see video:

2024-11-21.15-30-01.mp4

Additionally, as I noticed in the video, I think it makes sense to populate the filter based on the query parameter.

This might be opinionated, but I also think you shouldn't pass a hook value like router via props but use useRouter again in the component.

[aegroto]

I totally agree with your suggestions, thanks for your revision, I have updated the code accordingly.