Rule Groups: named collections of rules with accordion UI

[martinjms]

Summary

Add the ability to group individual rules into named "Rule Groups" that can be managed as a unit. This is a UI-only feature — on-chain, the rules are still flattened into a per-assembly rule list.

Motivation

Currently, each rule in a building group's policy is a single tribe or player entry. When managing many players (e.g. 20 paying customers, 15 friends, 5 officers), the flat list becomes hard to navigate.

Rule Groups let users organize rules semantically:

• "Paying Players" — 20 individual player rules, all set to Allow
• "Friends" — 15 players, Allow
• "Banned" — 3 players, Deny
• "Alliance" — 2 tribe rules, Allow

Proposed UX

• Each rule group appears as an accordion row in the policy list
• Collapsed: shows group name, member count, and the shared effect (Allow/Deny)
• Expanded: shows all individual rules inside, each editable
• The group can be enabled/disabled as a whole (toggling all members)
• Individual rules inside can also be toggled independently
• Groups are drag-to-reorder alongside individual rules in the priority list

Example

Building Group: "Alpha Sector Gates"
├── [T] [AWAR] Algorithmic Warfare        → Allow  ●
├── ▸ Paying Players (12 rules)           → Allow  ●    ← collapsed group
├── ▸ Banned Players (3 rules)            → Deny   ●    ← collapsed group
└── [*] Everyone                          → Deny   ●

Expanding "Paying Players":

├── ▾ Paying Players (12 rules)           → Allow  ●
│   ├── [P] Character #811880             → Allow  ●
│   ├── [P] Character #812345             → Allow  ●
│   ├── [P] Character #899001             → Allow  ○  ← disabled
│   └── ...

Technical Notes

• UI only — stored in localStorage alongside existing SavedRule and PolicyEntry data
• On-chain flattening: when "Apply" is clicked, groups are expanded into individual rules in the PTB
• Rule ordering: group position in the list determines where its members appear in the flattened on-chain rule list
• No Move contract changes needed

Out of Scope

• On-chain rule group concept (not needed — the contract evaluates flat rule lists)
• Nested groups (groups within groups)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code