Looks nice and makes sense for sure. I wonder if it wouldn't have been easier to just link to the original data source manager instead (not sure if it's probided by the API though...)

Sounds indeed useful, but I'm wondering if it might bring some confusion. The difference QGIS connection vs PG service is not super intuitive I think. Maybe it would be worth getting some input from @nirvn

Looks nice and makes sense for sure. I wonder if it wouldn't have been easier to just link to the original data source manager instead (not sure if it's probided by the API though...)

@signedav, thanks for your feedback. I'd really like to open the dialog to load layers, but couldn't find the way via API (in fact, the dialog opens but selected layers are never loaded, probably due to missing SIGNAL/SLOT connections or something).

Nonetheless, note that this PR allows users to create their very first QGIS connection using a PG service with a couple of clicks, which is not always obvious, and actually, error prone (you need to type the service name), even having the New Connection... dialog open.

Sounds indeed useful, but I'm wondering if it might bring some confusion. The difference QGIS connection vs PG service is not super intuitive I think. Maybe it would be worth getting some input from @nirvn

@3nids, thanks for your feedback. Right, that was exactly my motivation for this PR: "Ok, thanks to this plugin I now have a PG service edited and pointing to my DB, what's next?". I think the next step is to let users connect to their DB.

And yes, we'd appreciate your feedback here @nirvn!

This will indeed be a nice extension, to make up for the lack of a combobox or autocompletion for this field directly in QGIS.

In terms of usability, we could maybe think of unifying the "copy" and "edit" tabs under a single "services" tab and keep the "connections" tab where it is, that would make it clearer. I'd see this as a bigger change. For the shorter term, possibly renaming the first two tabs to "Edit service" and "Copy or new service" could be a way forward?

In any case, I'd not block this with too long UX discussions and rather merge this for the quick win :-)

Maybe one proposal: merge the first 2 tabs into "PG service file" tab. For the copy, we just add a push button next to the combobox with copy to new… and copy and overwirte … (with the list of all services)

And we then have the "QGIS services" tab. What do you think?

Otherwise, I'm fine with merging like this.

Summarizing naming proposals for tabs (and adding others):

1. Edit, Copy, Connections
2. Services, Connections
3. Edit service, Copy or new service, Connections
4. PG service file, QGIS Connections
5. Edit, Copy, Connect

I'd be happy to implement any of those, so let's reach an agreement through voting.
Please vote @m-kuhn, @3nids, @signedav, @ponceta and any other user that reads this :) (you can vote for multiple options or even add a new one).

Note that if an option to merge the first 2 tabs wins, we'll take that into account in a follow-up.

Maybe "QGIS Connections" rather than services.
But let's merge this one first indeed.

Rebased.

In terms of usability, we could maybe think of unifying the "copy" and "edit" tabs under a single "services" tab and keep the "connections" tab where it is, that would make it clearer. I'd see this as a bigger change. For the shorter term, possibly renaming the first two tabs to "Edit service" and "Copy or new service" could be a way forward?

Renamed the first two tabs to: Edit Service and Copy Service, to keep it short while we think about merging them.