invocation_action_card: render expected outputs

[sluongng]

Render the command's expected outputs so that users can compare them
against the actual outputs in the ActionResult.

Base on #6545

[sluongng]

Preview

[sluongng]

In the case of output_files and output_directories, we can tell whether the client expected a file or a dir. However, these are deprecated in favor of output_paths, which is not possible to tell whether they are files or dirs.

[sluongng]

A potentially nice addition to this would be if the ActionResult is available, we could

(a) check if the expected output was created and display a ✅ or ❓ to indicate output available/missing.

(b) display the file type (directory, file, symlink) of the expected output

[sluongng]

Hmm, I am not implementing either (a) or (b) because... I can't come up with a design that looks right. 😆

[sluongng]

Hmm, it looks a bit better?

[sluongng]

Preview of the latest changes

[siggisim]

I feel like expected outputs is going to be the same as outputs 99%+ of the time.

If that's the case, then we should just render expected outputs that didn't get created beneath our current list of outputs - maybe in red or something.

[sluongng]

@siggisim Oh I think changing this to "Missing Outputs" is a great idea!

But in the case when the Action Result is not available, we should still display the Expected Outputs?

[bduffany]

I kind of like having this flat list of outputs - the outputs tree is a bit clunkier because you can't see all the outputs at a glance and instead have to keep clicking on each directory which has some latency.

(edit: actually, is this right? do we render a nested tree starting from the root dir, or do we render each output path as a separate tree?)

[sluongng]

@bduffany currently we only render output directories as trees. Output files and output symlinks are rendered as flat list still. And for the directory, we do 1 tree per dir. So no clicking is required to see all the actual outputs. Only when you want to explore the contents of the output dirs, you can now click for more.

This PR is more about the Expected Outputs. For example, we do render Actions which dont have attached Action Result. In such case, user might still be interested in reviewing what the build rules was expecting the Command to produce.

If Action Result does exist, then there are some duplicated information between the Expected Outputs and actual (File, Dir, Symlink) Outputs like Siggi suggested.

[siggisim]

@bduffany currently we only render output directories as trees. Output files and output symlinks are rendered as flat list still. And for the directory, we do 1 tree per dir. So no clicking is required to see all the actual outputs. Only when you want to explore the contents of the output dirs, you can now click for more.

This PR is more about the Expected Outputs. For example, we do render Actions which dont have attached Action Result. In such case, user might still be interested in reviewing what the build rules was expecting the Command to produce.

If Action Result does exist, then there are some duplicated information between the Expected Outputs and actual (File, Dir, Symlink) Outputs like Siggi suggested.

I think we should only show expected outputs in two cases:

1. We don't have the list of actual outputs (i.e. the Action Result isn't present)
2. The actual outputs and the expected outputs differ (i.e. there is a missing output)

If we show it in other cases, it's a little confusing why they're not clickable, why there are two sets, etc.

[sluongng]

Preview

• Expected Outputs:
  

This could be shown by not registering any Executor.
Actions sent to app will be queued and eventually timeout, thus no Action Result.

• Missing Outputs:
  

Tested this by creating an invalid rule which declared an output file, but never created it.
Turns out that the output directory is always created by newer Bazel versions as part of the input root tree. So it's unlikely for the expected output directory to be missing.

[bduffany]

Can you fix the text alignment? The icon alignment looks OK but the alignment of filenames vs. dir names looks off.

Also can we show directories first, then files? Most file UIs that I've used will render them in that order.

[sluongng]

Latest previews:

1. Expected outputs

3. Missing outputs

[sluongng]

With the "red" class