Allow standalone Gnav client to Integrate their own Unav in Standalone Gnav

[bandana147]

Hi Team,

Adobe Home, a consumer of Standalone Gnav, has requested the ability to integrate their own Unav. As the owners of Unav, they believe this would simplify updates and feature integrations. Currently, they must rely on Gnav to implement updates or features, causing delays. They propose Gnav serve as a container, allowing them to manage Unav independently while taking responsibility for end-to-end testing. While we’ve emphasized maintaining consistency across all Standalone Gnav clients, they remain persistent.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this request.

I did a due diligence the decoupling and this is how it looks - https://github.com/adobecom/milo/compare/gnav-unav
We give them a flag which would disable our usual unav setup and give them a container instead and it would be on them to insert the unav in that container like we do today for search container.

Test app link - https://adobecom.github.io/nav-consumer/navigation.html?authoringpath=/federal/home&navbranch=gnav-unav&self-unav=true

[mokimo]

This topic sounds familiar, didn't we already have a similar discussion? I would personally not recommend this. This will open the box for any (standalone) consumer to render their own unav and makes QA virtually impossible on your end.

It's not just about the unav team testing changes either. Adobe home might be on UNAV v1.6 without you being ready for it, while all other consumers are on v1.4. Now you release changes in milo that are incompatible with v1.6 (which u don't even know is being used) and you have a CSO. And it will be you that's "liable" for those CSOs, as you own the global navigation & need to ensure it always runs as expected.

On top of that, there are the mentioned consistency issues. If the issue is efficiency/speed, IMO you should sync with the team and seeing on how you can shorten integration times for new versions and evaluate how this is currently a bottleneck and affects business.

[overmyheadandbody]

I fully agree with @mokimo's points. Could they simply define the Unav version that the Gnav should use via a config? They could use that for their use-case. If something breaks during their testing, it also means the new version introduces some breaking changes that should be communicated to other consumers.