taskbook
taskbook copied to clipboard
klaudiosinani
Add a web UI for taskbook
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. The feature is not related to any stated problem in the issues. It is a new feature.
Describe the solution you'd like I would like to have taskbook have an interactive web based user interface. Taskbook can then launch the browser via the command
tb --ui
Additional context I think this feature will make TaskBook appealing to a larger audience other than cli power users only
I understand #15 is about having an interactive command line based interface. What I am proposing is that there be a UI, probably browser based that one can easily use to perform all the operations possible via the command line.
I agree with @kudapara, I don't want to remember some command line options, but from click or some btn, to manage my task.
I am working on a prototype which I will push as a pull request so that it can be merged into master
@klaussinani an electron app can be made and I think it would be better than a web interface. can u tell me where does taskbook actually stores all the data? editing ~/.taskbook/archive/archive.json and ~/.taskbook/storage/storage.json has no effect on the actual taskbook tasks.
IMO an electron app, would be overkill because in addition to npm install taskbook one has to install the executable file too, to get the same benefit that the proposed web ui would provide. It is easier to integrate the web ui with the npm install process.
Best will be to just create a separate repo for a PWA, using this as API. And that's it, no need for any options or bloating the package.
The idea of creating a separate repo for a PWA, using taskbook as an API is a pretty great suggestion. It would definitely prevent bloating the package with an unnecessary addition. However, I also think just implementing a web ui that can be launched from the command-line, e.g. tb -w, that is built into taskbook is a viable and beneficial idea too.
In fact, having it just be a feature of taskbook itself may be the preferred solution as far as I'm concerned. It would, of course, increase the size of the package, but I wouldn't imagine by enough to be considered bloat due to feature being pretty useful anyway. And, if a user has no intention of ever using the feature it wouldn't impact the already existing performance really. The relatively small increase in package size seems like a worthwhile tradeoff in order to at least contain the option for those who would use it.
