Update task creation form

[aaronchongth]

What's new

• Refactor delivery task form to be more intuitive
• Only display dedicated waypoints for patrol, clean and delivery tasks
• If no waypoints were provided for any of the task, the choice of that task is disabled
• Migrate word use of Loop to Patrol

Self-checks

• I have prototyped this new feature (if necessary) on Figma
• I'm familiar with and follow this Typescript guideline
• I added unit-tests for new components
• I tried testing edge cases
• I tested the behavior of the components that interact with the backend, with an e2e test

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #743 (9837319) into main (dec13be) will decrease coverage by 0.14%.
The diff coverage is 14.89%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #743      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.65%   54.52%   -0.14%     
==========================================
  Files         263      263              
  Lines        6528     6548      +20     
  Branches      862      865       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         3568     3570       +2     
- Misses       2820     2838      +18     
  Partials      140      140              

Flag	Coverage Δ
dashboard	18.37% <40.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
react-components	51.77% <8.10%> (-0.35%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
...ackages/react-components/lib/tasks/create-task.tsx	2.38% <0.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
packages/react-components/lib/place.ts	10.34% <13.63%> (+10.34%)	⬆️
packages/dashboard/src/components/appbar.tsx	31.10% <40.00%> (-0.94%)	⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[Angatupyry]

This looks really great!
I just left a small comment that you might consider
The code looks nice too!
Thanks, Aaron!

LGTM!

[Angatupyry]

nit: Maybe we can use destructuring and switch here

Suggested change

	for (const level of buildingMap.levels) {
	for (const graphs of level.nav_graphs) {
	for (const vertex of graphs.vertices) {
	if (vertex.name) {
	const place: Place = { level: level.name, vertex };
	for (const p of vertex.params) {
	if (p.name === DEFAULT_PICKUP_POINT_PARAM_NAME) {
	pickupPoints.set(vertex.name, place);
	}
	if (p.name === DEFAULT_DROPOFF_POINT_PARAM_NAME) {
	dropoffPoints.set(vertex.name, place);
	}
	if (p.name === DEFAULT_CLEANING_ZONE_PARAM_NAME) {
	cleaningZones.set(vertex.name, place);
	}
	}
	places.set(vertex.name, place);
	}
	}
	}
	}
	for (const level of buildingMap.levels) {
	for (const graphs of level.nav_graphs) {
	for (const vertex of graphs.vertices) {
	const { name, params } = vertex;
	if (!name) {
	continue;
	}
	const place: Place = { level: level.name, vertex };
	for (const p of params) {
	switch (p.name) {
	case DEFAULT_PICKUP_POINT_PARAM_NAME:
	pickupPoints.set(name, place);
	break;
	case DEFAULT_DROPOFF_POINT_PARAM_NAME:
	dropoffPoints.set(name, place);
	break;
	case DEFAULT_CLEANING_ZONE_PARAM_NAME:
	cleaningZones.set(name, place);
	break;
	}
	}
	places.set(name, place);
	}
	}
	}

[aaronchongth]

9837319

I've just refactored the if case! Thanks for catching that, @Angatupyry!

Although the repeated if cases look ugly, I think I'll keep it that way since we have no guarantees that a single waypoint can't have multiple of these params (e.g. all 3), also I believe switch statements should be reserved for enums or simple number and chars, I don't think we should be comparing strings that way.

I'll go ahead and merge this now! Thanks!