Remove canRenew condition from billing page
What does this MR do and why?
Let the GraphQL call handle the Renew
button visibility, we already account for subscription end date and trials on backend side when computing the inRenewalPeriod
value on the API side.
The changes are targeting EDU/OSS subscriptions as they have a longer period for renewal (3 months vs 15 days in all the other cases)
Related to #363439 (closed) && #378283 (closed)
Screenshots or screen recordings
Before | After |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
How to set up and validate locally
Prerequisites: GitLab and CustomersDot connected, Zuora account
- (Zuora) Create an EDU/OSS SaaS subscription in Zuora with the term date in 2 months
- (CustomersDot) Assign this subscription to a group
- (GitLab) Navigate to that group billing page (http://localhost:3000/groups/test-group/-/billings)
- (GitLab) Check if the visibility of the buttons set correctly
MR acceptance checklist
This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.
-
I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR.
Merge request reports
Activity
changed milestone to %15.6
added devopsfulfillment featureenhancement frontend groupsubscription management sectionfulfillment typefeature + 1 deleted label
assigned to @dzubova
1 Warning featureaddition and featureenhancement merge requests normally have a documentation change. Consider adding a documentation update or confirming the documentation plan with the Technical Writer counterpart.
For more information, see:
- The Handbook page on merge request types.
- The definition of done documentation.
1 Message CHANGELOG missing: If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab FOSS, add the
Changelog
trailer to the commit message you want to add to the changelog.If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab EE, also add the
EE: true
trailer to your commit message.If this merge request doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry, feel free to ignore this message.
Reviewer roulette
Changes that require review have been detected!
Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:
Category Reviewer Maintainer frontend Scott de Jonge ( @sdejonge
) (UTC+11, 9 hours ahead of@dzubova
)Jose Ivan Vargas ( @jivanvl
) (UTC-5, 7 hours behind@dzubova
)test for spec/features/*
Dan Davison ( @ddavison
) (UTC-4, 6 hours behind@dzubova
)Maintainer review is optional for test for spec/features/*
To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.
To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.
Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.
If needed, you can retry the
danger-review
job that generated this comment.Generated by
DangerBundle size analysis [beta]
This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits ef02fbad and 39de36a1
Special assetsEntrypoint / Name Size before Size after Diff Diff in percent average 3.59 MB 3.59 MB - -0.0 % mainChunk 1.96 MB 1.96 MB - 0.0 %
Note: We do not have exact data for ef02fbad. So we have used data from: b255d44b.
The target commit was too new, so we used the latest commit from master we have info on.
It might help to rerun thebundle-size-review
job
This might mean that you have a few false positives in this report. If something unrelated to your code changes is reported, you can check this comparison in order to see if they caused this change.Please look at the full report for more details
Read more about how this report works.
Generated by
Dangermentioned in issue #363439 (closed)
- Resolved by Natalia Tepluhina
@ebralitis could you please review the test updates in this MR?
requested review from @ebralitis
- Resolved by Natalia Tepluhina
@aalakkad could you please review this MR? It's quite context heavy and requires a complicated setup
requested review from @aalakkad
Allure report
allure-report-publisher
generated test report!e2e-package-and-test:
test report for c97ed152expand test summary
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ | suites summary | +-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result | +-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Fulfillment | 10 | 0 | 70 | 5 | 80 | ❗ | +-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Total | 10 | 0 | 70 | 5 | 80 | ❗ | +-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
e2e-review-qa:
test report for 39de36a1expand test summary
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | suites summary | +------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result | +------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Plan | 47 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 48 | ✅ | | Manage | 52 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 60 | ❗ | | Create | 28 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 29 | ✅ | | Fulfillment | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 16 | ➖ | | Verify | 12 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 13 | ✅ | | Secure | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ✅ | | Version sanity check | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ➖ | | Govern | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ✅ | | Configure | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ➖ | | Feature flag handler sanity checks | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | ✅ | | Package | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ➖ | +------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Total | 152 | 0 | 30 | 2 | 182 | ❗ | +------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
@ebralitis
, thanks for approving this merge request.This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline will be started shortly.
For more info, please refer to the following links:
- Resolved by Diana Zubova
requested review from @ntepluhina and removed review request for @aalakkad
enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for 5bcb7108 succeeds
- Resolved by Diana Zubova
@dzubova could you please rebase onto
master
? It seems the failing job was fixed. Normally, I would run/rebase
myself but now if I do so, I won't be able to merge
added 450 commits
-
c97ed152...ef02fbad - 449 commits from branch
master
- 39de36a1 - Remove canRenew condition from billing page
-
c97ed152...ef02fbad - 449 commits from branch
enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for 59f904d4 succeeds
mentioned in commit c5f33a77
added workflowstaging-canary label
added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging-canary label
added workflowstaging label and removed workflowcanary label
added workflowproduction label and removed workflowstaging label
added releasedcandidate label
added releasedpublished label and removed releasedcandidate label