Skip to content

feat: add advanced settings gate to agent creation wizard#593

Open
tejaskash wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
advanced-config-gate
Open

feat: add advanced settings gate to agent creation wizard#593
tejaskash wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
advanced-config-gate

Conversation

@tejaskash
Copy link
Contributor

@tejaskash tejaskash commented Mar 20, 2026

Summary

  • Adds a "Configure advanced settings?" Yes/No gate before network configuration in the agent creation wizard (both Create and BYO paths)
  • Defaults to "No, use defaults" (Public network, no VPC), letting most users skip network config with one Enter press
  • Selecting "Yes, customize" expands into the existing network mode, subnet, and security group steps

Screenshots

Advanced gate (defaults to "No")

Advanced gate default

Default path: skips to Confirm with PUBLIC network

Confirm with PUBLIC

"Yes, customize" expands network config

Yes customize network

Test plan

  • Default path: Enter on Advanced → Confirm shows "Network: PUBLIC"
  • Advanced Yes: Yes → Network → VPC → Subnets → SGs → Confirm reflects VPC config
  • Back navigation: Esc from Network → Advanced; Esc from Advanced → Memory
  • State cleanup: Yes → VPC config → back → No → Confirm shows PUBLIC, no VPC
  • MCP protocol: Select MCP → Advanced step still appears (skips Framework/Model as expected)
  • BYO path: Bedrock → Advanced gate → defaults → Confirm shows PUBLIC
  • Unit tests: 2510/2510 passing (2 pre-existing PTY failures unrelated)
  • E2E: container-strands-bedrock test fails — pre-existing on main, unrelated to this change

Insert a "Configure advanced settings?" Yes/No gate before network
configuration in both the Create and BYO agent paths. Defaults to
"No, use defaults" (Public network, no VPC), letting most users skip
network config with a single Enter press. Selecting "Yes, customize"
expands into the existing network mode, subnet, and security group
steps.
@tejaskash tejaskash requested a review from a team March 20, 2026 20:23
@github-actions github-actions bot added the size/m PR size: M label Mar 20, 2026
@github-actions github-actions bot added size/m PR size: M and removed size/m PR size: M labels Mar 20, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 20, 2026

Coverage Report

Status Category Percentage Covered / Total
🔵 Lines 43.94% 5004 / 11388
🔵 Statements 43.61% 5309 / 12173
🔵 Functions 43.99% 934 / 2123
🔵 Branches 44.98% 3199 / 7112
Generated in workflow #1105 for commit 5d282ef by the Vitest Coverage Report Action

Copy link
Contributor

@notgitika notgitika left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we add unit tests for this new step logic? Also, I believe "Protocol" should also fall under Advanced... lmk what you think.

Other concerns:
State cleanup inconsistency between Generate and BYO paths

useGenerateWizard.ts clears VPC config with undefined, but AddAgentScreen.tsx clears with empty strings ''. If downstream code checks !== undefined or serializes to JSON, behavior will diverge. Should use the same sentinel value in both paths.

ADVANCED_OPTIONS has description: undefined for "Yes, customize"

Other option arrays use actual strings for all descriptions. If WizardSelect renders description without a null check, this could render "undefined" as text. Should be description: ' ' or verified against the component's rendering logic.


@github-actions github-actions bot added size/m PR size: M and removed size/m PR size: M labels Mar 20, 2026
15 tests covering step list composition, setAdvanced routing,
state cleanup on toggle, routing callbacks targeting advanced,
and reset behavior.
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the size/m PR size: M label Mar 20, 2026
@github-actions github-actions bot added the size/m PR size: M label Mar 20, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/m PR size: M

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants