feat: bring Huf Data Table builder form to Add-Tool-form UX maturity - #458
Closed
esafwan wants to merge 3 commits into
Closed
feat: bring Huf Data Table builder form to Add-Tool-form UX maturity#458esafwan wants to merge 3 commits into
esafwan wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
This was referenced Jul 26, 2026
Contributor
Author
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Brings the Huf Data Table create/edit schema-builder form (Table Settings panel, Field
Properties panel, field type selector, field list canvas) up to the same visual maturity as
the "Add Tool" form (
ToolCreationForm.tsx/ToolFormModal.tsx), which the user called outas the reference standard for box/border/color quality.
Two passes:
text-muted-foreground->text-steel, stray radius classes).rounded-none border ... p-4grouping pattern), varied surface colors for depth(
bg-panel/bg-paper-deep), and bordered header separators — the first pass alone wascolor-token-only and didn't actually close the "maturity" gap, which was structural, not
color. Caught this by directly comparing screenshots before committing to it, not by
trusting the diff size.
No behavior change — field add/remove/reorder, type selection, table settings, and delete
confirmation all work exactly as before.
Screenshots (live bench, before → after)
Table Settings panel:

Before:
After:
Field Properties panel:

Before:
After:
Test plan
yarn typecheck— 0 errorsyarn lint— 0 errors (60 pre-existing unrelated warnings)