@theborakompanioni could you review this

@theborakompanioni could you review this

Nice!

Regarding the i18n keys: It is tried - although not 100% consistent - to have them prefixed with their intent, e.g. "text_button_submit", "text_button_submitting" or "label_<text>" instead of "submit_button" or "blockheight_label".
Okay for you to adapt that?

Edit: Do you think we need a better/longer description text (subtitle)?

Regarding the i18n keys: It is tried - although not 100% consistent - to have them prefixed with their intent

i was not aware of this, I have made the changes as you've asked
@theborakompanioni these are the final objects

  "rescan_chain": {
    "title": "Rescan timechain (Experimental)",
    "subtitle": "Rescan the local timechain for wallet related transactions.",
    "label_blockheight": "Rescan height",
    "description_blockheight": "The height of the chain at which the rescan process is started.",
    "error_rescanning_failed": "Error while starting the rescan process. Reason: {{ reason }}",
    "feedback_invalid_blockheight": "Please provide a valid value between {{ min }} and the current blockheight.",
    "text_button_submit": "Rescan timechain",
    "text_button_submitting": "Rescanning timechain..."
  },

and

settings: {
     "rescan_chain": "Rescan chain",
}

ill push the changes now

Edit: Do you think we need a better/longer description text (subtitle)?

The current set of information is clear but this would definitely help the user. could you give any suggestions as to what should be added @theborakompanioni

Edit: Do you think we need a better/longer description text (subtitle)?

The current set of information is clear but this would definitely help the user. could you give any suggestions as to what should be added @theborakompanioni

You are right, however, it is probably okay to do that in a follow-up PR, yes?
I think the changes here are already quite cool - so let's merge it.
After that we should think about disabling the form when a transaction is in progress, e.g. maker or taker running.
This has not been done properly as of now, as it was only available in dev mode. Also worth to do in a follow-up PR. Do you think so as well?

ping @editwentyone

You are right, however, it is probably okay to do that in a follow-up PR, yes? I think the changes here are already quite cool - so let's merge it. After that we should think about disabling the form when a transaction is in progress, e.g. maker or taker running. This has not been done properly as of now, as it was only available in dev mode. Also worth to do in a follow-up PR. Do you think so as well?

Yes i agree, we can consider adding better description later on after the rest of the things are sorted!