feat(example): refactor p/demo/blog

[louonezime]

This PR is linked to the https://github.com/gnolang/gno/issues/4088 for scratching the old /p/demo/blog to make it better but still have it be compatible with the gnoblo-cli.

This is currently in /p/lou/blog as to start with a completely fresh package, the git diff is nicer to read this way.

These are the features:

• [x] Blog rendering with use of mux
• [x] Filtering of tags through query --> :tag/<tagname>
• [x] Sorting alphabetically --> ?sort=alpha&order=asc
• [x] Sorting from last updated --> ?sort=update&order=asc

Added/modified:

• [x] Listing of all tags
  • [x] Add sorting options
  • [x] Number of posts
• [x] Listing of all authors
  • [x] Add sorting options
  • [x] Number of posts
• [x] Listing in time ranges (start – end) --> ?start=<time>&end=<time>
  • [x] time.RFC3339, // rfc3339 format
  • [x] "2006-01-02", // date only
  • [x] "2006-01", // year and month
  • [x] "2006", // year only
• [x] Filtering of authors like it has already been done for tags (through query) --> :author/<authorname>
• [x] Toggle grid and list mode for Rendering (using gno-columns) --> ?mode=grid or ?mode=list
• [x] Adding pagination
• [x] Updating comments based on comment ID
• [x] Switching to seq.id as indexes
• [x] Improve error handling and messages throughout the package.
• [x] Pinning comments
• [x] Resolve users via r/sys/users registry.

Further (not mentioned in issue):

• [x] Filtering of commenters like it has already been done for tags (through query) --> :commenter/<commentername>
• [x] Sorting from most/least recent (for posts and filters) --> ?sort=recent&order=asc
• [x] Toggle time format -- Is it necessary?
• [x] Add likes to comments
• [x] Add replies to comments
• [x] Add likes to posts -- Is it necessary?
• [x] Mention method to simulate a link to a specific author/ commenter (will link to :author or :commenter)
• [x] Make sorting/toggling options customizable (to disable/ or select)
• [x] Add a customizable option for rendering previews (at home, to add actions)
• [ ] Add tests
  • [x] Base of testings with uassert and urequire
  • [ ] For all scenarios
• [ ] Add moderation
  • [x] Formatting, checking user validity and resolving
  • [ ] Permissions are handled
  • [ ] Assert users
  • [ ] Try using authorizable package
• [x] Fix total replies for comments size + reply id are relative to comments
• [ ] Add more documentation
  • [ ] More doc.gno
  • [ ] Add comments
  • [ ] Document customisation of rendering
  • [ ] Document custom of toggling/sort headers
• [ ] Add realm example for the use of the package

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

All Automated Checks passed. ✅

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):

• [x] IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)
• [x] The pull request description provides enough details

Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info) 🟢 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

☑️ Contributor Actions:

1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
   • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
   • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
   • Update documentation, if required.
   • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
   • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.

☑️ Reviewer Actions:

1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.

📚 Resources:

• Report a bug with the bot.
• View the bot’s configuration file.

Debug

Automated Checks

Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: louonezime/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 If
    ├── 🟢 Condition
    │   └── 🟢 Or
    │       ├── 🟢 User leohhhn already reviewed PR 4324 with state APPROVED
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🟢 Then
        └── 🟢 Not (🔴 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending)

Manual Checks

**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

• Any user with comment edit permission

The pull request description provides enough details

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: core-contributors)
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is user: dependabot[bot])

Can be checked by

• team core-contributors

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

:loudspeaker: Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[leohhhn]

Looking forward to seeing a demo soon :)

[louonezime]

Gotta start writing some tests :)

I suggest you list out the scenarios first, then start writing the tests

Thanks! I also have another question regarding the PR — would it make more sense for users that can be resolved through /r/sys/user to also be identifiable via /u/<user> to allow write permissions? I assume this would need to be handled in gnoblogcli at the least, correct? If so, I would be glad to make this more streamlined in the future.

As of now, I feel it's most fitting to only check through the UserResolver.

So, since I'm polishing the moderation of the blog, what do you think would be best?

[leohhhn]

@louonezime

How's this going along? When will it be ready for another review?

[leohhhn]

oh btw, register your realm to r/leon/hor :)

[louonezime]

@louonezime

How's this going along? When will it be ready for another review?

Yes, it's going I'm just reviewing and testing every aspect to work my full realm now :) Will try and finish for this week, maybe Wednesday if I can finish the tests

EDIT : I am now doing tests, documentation and working on distinguishing owner and moderators. So I opened for review as I am sure there is room for improvement on the refactorisation. (not sure if my byId and bySlug functions are too much and should just be handled in the realm for example)

[jefft0]

The realm page has options to filter the blog posts. As we discussed in the dev call, the Render function has a CPU limit. In this video, I did a stress test to demonstrate this limit. I also discuss possible mitigations, including warning the user when getting close to the limit. https://www.loom.com/share/518211ca05664ac6b00a83704fcce34b

[leohhhn]

Hey @louonezime, can you please take a look at the CI and why it's failing?

[leohhhn]

Looking at this now, glad to see you're still active 🙏