Repository navigation
ui package upgrades - #13632
ui package upgrades#13632DaanHoogland wants to merge 30 commits into
Conversation
f22a38a to
2356504
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #13632 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 20.78% 20.81% +0.02%
- Complexity 21940 21943 +3
============================================
Files 6496 6496
Lines 591822 591474 -348
Branches 72615 72617 +2
============================================
+ Hits 123015 123090 +75
+ Misses 455452 455006 -446
- Partials 13355 13378 +23
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
🔴 Test Coverage Grade:
|
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Line coverage | 24.50% |
| Branch coverage | 18.66% |
Grade Scale
| Grade | Line Coverage | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 🟢 A | ≥ 80% | Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴 |
| 🟡 B | 60-79% | Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉 |
| 🟠 C | 40-59% | Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬 |
| 🔴 D | 20-39% | Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖 |
| ⛔ F | < 20% | Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥 |
Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run
|
@DaanHoogland a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
UI build: ✔️ |
🔴 Test Coverage Grade:
|
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Line coverage | 24.50% |
| Branch coverage | 18.66% |
Grade Scale
| Grade | Line Coverage | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 🟢 A | ≥ 80% | Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴 |
| 🟡 B | 60-79% | Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉 |
| 🟠 C | 40-59% | Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬 |
| 🔴 D | 20-39% | Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖 |
| ⛔ F | < 20% | Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥 |
Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run
🔴 Test Coverage Grade:
|
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Line coverage | 24.50% |
| Branch coverage | 18.66% |
Grade Scale
| Grade | Line Coverage | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 🟢 A | ≥ 80% | Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴 |
| 🟡 B | 60-79% | Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉 |
| 🟠 C | 40-59% | Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬 |
| 🔴 D | 20-39% | Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖 |
| ⛔ F | < 20% | Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥 |
Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run
|
@DaanHoogland a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
UI build failed: ✖️ |
🔴 Test Coverage Grade:
|
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Line coverage | 24.50% |
| Branch coverage | 18.66% |
Grade Scale
| Grade | Line Coverage | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 🟢 A | ≥ 80% | Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴 |
| 🟡 B | 60-79% | Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉 |
| 🟠 C | 40-59% | Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬 |
| 🔴 D | 20-39% | Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖 |
| ⛔ F | < 20% | Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥 |
Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run
|
@DaanHoogland a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
UI build: ✔️ |
🔴 Test Coverage Grade:
|
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Line coverage | 24.50% |
| Branch coverage | 18.66% |
Grade Scale
| Grade | Line Coverage | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 🟢 A | ≥ 80% | Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴 |
| 🟡 B | 60-79% | Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉 |
| 🟠 C | 40-59% | Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬 |
| 🔴 D | 20-39% | Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖 |
| ⛔ F | < 20% | Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥 |
Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run
| NODE_MAJOR=$(node -p "process.versions.node.split('.')[0]") | ||
| if [ "$NODE_MAJOR" -ge 17 ]; then | ||
| export NODE_OPTIONS="--openssl-legacy-provider ${NODE_OPTIONS}" | ||
| fi |
🔴 Test Coverage Grade:
|
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Line coverage | 24.50% |
| Branch coverage | 18.66% |
Grade Scale
| Grade | Line Coverage | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 🟢 A | ≥ 80% | Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴 |
| 🟡 B | 60-79% | Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉 |
| 🟠 C | 40-59% | Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬 |
| 🔴 D | 20-39% | Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖 |
| ⛔ F | < 20% | Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥 |
Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
webpack 4 uses the MD4 hash algorithm which OpenSSL 3 (Node 17+) no longer provides by default, causing ERR_OSSL_EVP_UNSUPPORTED. NODE_OPTIONS is used (rather than a direct node flag) so the setting is inherited by all child processes that webpack spawns during the build. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three independent issues surfaced after the recent package upgrades and were causing the UI Build workflow to fail: - The Node 17+/OpenSSL 3 fix (NODE_OPTIONS='--openssl-legacy-provider') crashes on Node 16, which is what CI actually uses, since that flag doesn't exist without OpenSSL 3. Move it into a wrapper script that only sets it when the running Node actually needs it. - @vue/compiler-sfc 3.5.40 (up from 3.2.37) now only enables the jsx babel parser plugin for <script lang="jsx">/<script setup lang="tsx"> blocks; it silently discards a 'jsx' entry from user-supplied babelParserPlugins otherwise. Views using inline JSX in a plain <script> block (already relying on cli-service's babelParserPlugins config) now fail to compile, surfacing as an unrelated-looking "Cannot read properties of null (reading 'content')" since vue-loader swallows the real compileScript error. Tag those <script> blocks lang="jsx" explicitly. - vue-router 4.6.4 and minio 7.1.3 (with its fast-xml-parser dependency) ship modern syntax (class fields, optional chaining) in both their ESM and CJS builds, which webpack 4's parser can't handle. Add them to transpileDependencies so babel processes them like first-party source. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
npm run serve/start/build now set --openssl-legacy-provider automatically via node-options-wrapper.sh, only when the running Node actually needs it. The old manual instruction is not just redundant but actively harmful: a contributor who exports it persistently and later runs on Node 16 (what CI pins) crashes node outright, since that flag doesn't exist without OpenSSL 3. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
a66d7f4 to
913dec4
Compare
|





Description
This PR...
Fixes: #13631
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?
How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?