-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 364
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: [M3-7158] - Update NodeJS naming to Node.js for Marketplace #11086
Conversation
Coverage Report: ✅ |
The titles in the I'm thinking that, rather than updating the hardcoded Let me know if you have any questions on that ⬆️ The changes in the description and guides still have to be done hard-coded so those changes look good to me. |
I see now, adding an additional
I like this idea. To coordinate this update would I make my changes and wait for the marketplace team to make their changes before merging my PR? |
Right. I'm suggesting we just show the stackscrpt label rather than Cloud Manager's hardcoded
I don't think the changes need to be super coordinated. It seems like there is already some inconsistency with NodeJS vs Node.js so I don't think it's a huge deal to coordinate |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
I'm in favor of showing the StackScript label rather than the hardcoded name
as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see now, adding an additional .replace('NodeJS', 'Node.js'); would fix the title in the Card.
Right. I'm suggesting we just show the stackscrpt label rather than Cloud Manager's hardcoded
name
and ask the Marketplace team to update the label so that we won't need to do any client side replacement
Sounds good to me too - I like the thought of consistency with label
everywhere, in the Marketplace team's control.
@carrillo-erik Something like this would show all the necessary changes in AppDetailDrawer
and I imagine there will be test changes required too.
const selectedApp = apps.find((app) => app.stackscript.id === stackScriptId);
const displayLabel = selectedApp
? getMarketplaceAppLabel(selectedApp?.stackscript.label)
: ''; // Use everywhere name was
To coordinate this update would I make my changes and wait for the marketplace team to make their changes before merging my PR?
I don't think the changes need to be super coordinated. It seems like there is already some inconsistency with NodeJS vs Node.js so I don't think it's a huge deal to coordinate
Agreed. I would reach out to @hmorris3293 or @tbaka-akamai internally to make sure they're aware of this change and see no issue with it, then we can revert this PR's current changes to name
and they can finish the label
updates on their end. We could clean up of all oneClickAppsv2.ts name
s in a separate PR, but I don't think it would be too much scope creep to do it in this one.
howdy @mjac0bs updating the label is trivial on our end. We went ahead and made the change for Node.JS and Openlitespeed Node.JS on the backend. It appears to render correctly in the Cloud Manager. |
@tbaka-akamai Thanks for the quick turnaround on this, there's only one minor change is that the |
No problem @carrillo-erik. I have updated the casing on the labels. |
@bnussman-akamai @mjac0bs Next, I will complete the following steps.
However, I'd like some further clarification with this statement to better understand how to effectively close this PR:
|
@carrillo-erik - you reverted the changes to the hardcoded name property and Travis has updated the labels, as per his comments above, so this part is done. 👍🏼 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
✅ Node.js is capitalized correctly everywhere it is used.
✅ We are consistently using the stackscript label
(with our standard manipulation via the util) rather than the hardcoded name
. We still use the util because all OCA stackscripts contain some extra information in the label that we don't want to display to the user.
✅ We removed the hardcoded name
from oneClickAppsv2.ts
without regressions.
✅ Tests pass - CI failures were unrelated, though the support ticket one could have been resolved by merging in the latest develop
const displayLabel = stackscript | ||
? getMarketplaceAppLabel(stackscript.label) | ||
: ''; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we move this below the if
statement? No need to fallback to an empty string
const displayLabel = stackscript | |
? getMarketplaceAppLabel(stackscript.label) | |
: ''; | |
const displayLabel = getMarketplaceAppLabel(stackscript.label); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Moving this line above the if
statement would lead to a scope error for displayLabel
as it is used in the error message that we throw on Lines 46-47.
You have to scroll far into the right to see it:
We expected that StackScript to be in the response for the Marketplace app named "${displayLabel}".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, but wouldn't displayLabel
be an empty string if that error was thrown? If that's the case, we might aswell just remove that sentence from the error message
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could change the error message to:
Cloud Manager's fetch to GET /v4/linode/stackscripts did not receive a StackScript with ID ${stackscriptId}. We expected a StackScript to be in the response.
This would allow us to make the change you suggested, resolve the empty string, and the deal with the variable scope error.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wrote the last comment before noticing you had edited your comment above. I removed the stackscript.label
reference from the error message.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice. Looks great now!
@@ -11,7 +11,6 @@ export interface OCA { | |||
*/ | |||
isNew?: boolean; | |||
logo_url: string; | |||
name: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great 👏 🎉
Less hardcoded stuff === 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good pending the clean up in one-click-apps.spec.ts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @carrillo-erik! +1 to @bnussman-akamai's suggestion to move the const declaration but otherwise tests look (and run) great!
Cloud Manager E2E Run #6688
Run Properties:
|
Project |
Cloud Manager E2E
|
Run status |
Passed #6688
|
Run duration | 26m 48s |
Commit |
dda6bf987b: feat: [M3-7158] - Update NodeJS naming to Node.js for Marketplace (#11086)
|
Committer | carrillo-erik |
View all properties for this run ↗︎ |
Test results | |
---|---|
Failures |
0
|
Flaky |
4
|
Pending |
2
|
Skipped |
0
|
Passing |
437
|
Description 📝
Updates any reference to
NodeJS
in Marketplace toNode.js
.Changes 🔄
List any change relevant to the reviewer.
js
.Preview 📷
How to test 🧪
Verification steps
(How to verify changes)
(i)
under the following Apps.NodeJS
have been replaced withNode.js
within theAppDetailDrawer
.As an Author I have considered 🤔
Check all that apply