Implemented alias action UX.

[AWSHurneyt]

Description

1. Implemented alias action UX.
2. Removed redundant popout icons from Learn more links. Having target="_blank" in the link attributes provides the icon.

Issues Resolved

#374

Screenshots

Blank UX.

UX with valid inputs.

UX with validation errors.

Check List

• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #754 (928007b) into main (d0fdde2) will increase coverage by 1.03%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #754      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.37%   63.40%   +1.03%     
==========================================
  Files         337      340       +3     
  Lines       11437    11541     +104     
  Branches     2212     2239      +27     
==========================================
+ Hits         7134     7318     +184     
+ Misses       3739     3649      -90     
- Partials      564      574      +10     

see 16 files with indirect coverage changes

[AWSHurneyt]

It looks like the cypress workflow is executing as expected on the 2.x branch. I've created this PR in my fork that executes these checks against the 2.x branch, and all checks succeed.
AWSHurneyt#2

[kamingleung]

@AWSHurneyt

1. Is there a need to have both add and remove on the same action? Would it be more clear to have separate actions such as "Add aliases" and "Remove aliases"?
2. Can users select from a list of existing aliases to add or remove?

[AWSHurneyt]

@AWSHurneyt

1. Is there a need to have both add and remove on the same action? Would it be more clear to have separate actions such as "Add aliases" and "Remove aliases"?
2. Can users select from a list of existing aliases to add or remove?

@kamingleung

1. On the backend, the alias action handles add/remove actions in the same process. In addition, if the user were to interact with the _alias API using devtools, they would be able to configure add/remove actions in one command (https://opensearch.org/docs/latest/api-reference/index-apis/alias/); this implementation would preserve that experience in a way. We could separate them into separate UX, but it would be a purely frontend split essentially. I don't think there would be an issue with separating them (aside from the actual implementation time), but @bowenlan-amzn correct me if I'm wrong.
2. At the moment, the combo boxes do not populate with a list of defined aliases. @bowenlan-amzn , would we want to populate the combo boxes with existing aliases as well? I can see the value in that, especially for the remove action.

[kamingleung]

@AWSHurneyt

1. I would recommend having add and remove as separate actions on the UI. This makes it clear and distinctive on what each action is trying to do. It is also clear when reviewing the policy on the UI.

IF that cannot be done, I would consider the following alternative interaction:

"Select aliases to add..." and "Select aliases to remove.." fields will be required if users toggled the switches on.

[AWSHurneyt]

Here are some updated screenshots based on the feedback above.

Fields disabled

Blank fields

Fields with error messages

Fields with valid inputs

Modal that appears when disabling one of the combo boxes while it contains inputs

[kamingleung]

Modal that appears when disabling one of the combo boxes while it contains inputs

@AWSHurneyt When disabling one of the toggles, instead of asking to clear the field, can we cache the selections, so if the user decides to toggle back on, the selections are still there?

If the user leaves the "Add action" flyout, it will no longer save those selections.

[AWSHurneyt]

Captured some follow-up enhancements Ming brought up in issue #777

[AWSHurneyt]

As mentioned in #754 (comment), the cypress test workflow is currently failing in the main branch; but in this PR AWSHurneyt#2, we can see that they succeed when executed against the 2.x branch.