[LOW PRIORITY] Search box: expand downwards not sideways; truncate long workspace folder chips

[hoyla]

A new attempt at #474 (+1,189 −886 changes) that comes after the introduction of prettier. This one is less galling (+44, -5).

Attempt to fix the problem where long search terms cause the search box to extend offscreen.

What does this change?

Changes the behaviour of the Giant search box by increasing its depth for long queries rather than width. Secondly, very long workspace folder chip names - a common occurence - are truncated within the search box. A tooltip provides the full name.

• Lets the free-text portion of the search box wrap within the available width (plus SCSS tweaks so chips/input flow vertically with a 100 px typing minimum), preventing long queries from stretching the layout off the right of the screen.
• If a workspace folder chip name is very long, truncates the chip display, swaps the label to “Folder”, and shows the full name via a tooltip.
• Removes the auto-inserted * when triggering “Search in folder”, so the search field is empty and ready for the user’s own terms.

How to test

1. Put some very long search terms into Giant's search box.
2. Make a folder with a very long name in a workspace. Execute "search in folder". Check that the chip is properly truncated, and shows a tooltip to reveal the full name of the folder.

How can we measure success?

If our searches don't lead to a search box that stretches off the right of the screen and renders it impossible to execute and see the results on the same screen.

Have we considered potential risks?

Well, it's LukeCode™ I'm afraid

[philmcmahon]

@hoyla this is on playground here https://playground.pfi.gutools.co.uk/search - feel free to use playground any time by deploying project investigations::pfi-playground here https://riffraff.gutools.co.uk/deployment/request - it has deploy history on the right so you can check if anyone is likely to be using it

[hoyla]

feel free to use playground any time by deploying project investigations::pfi-playground here https://riffraff.gutools.co.uk/deployment/request - it has deploy history on the right so you can check if anyone is likely to be using it

Would the following have been correct to test that?