Issues: consolidate buttons
What does this MR do and why?
This MR consolidates buttons in the issues header region. It moves the edit
button to the issue header. This change aligns with recent changes for MRs.
Screenshots or screen recordings
Issues
Before | After |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Incident
Before | After |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Epics
Before | After |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
For comparison: MRs
MR edit | MR close |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
How to set up and validate locally
Numbered steps to set up and validate the change are strongly suggested.
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 %15.10
added UX UX Paper Cuts featureenhancement frontend issues sectiondev typefeature labels
assigned to @seggenberger
Please wait for Reviewer Roulette to suggest a designer for UX review, and then assign them as Reviewer. This helps evenly distribute reviews across UX.
This message was generated automatically. You're welcome to improve it.
added severity4 + 1 deleted label
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 Rudy Crespo (
@rcrespo3
) (UTC-4, 5 hours behind@seggenberger
)Denys Mishunov (
@dmishunov
) (UTC+1, same timezone as@seggenberger
)test for spec/features/*
Eugie Limpin (
@eugielimpin
) (UTC+8, 7 hours ahead of@seggenberger
)Maintainer review is optional for test for spec/features/*
UX Alex Fracazo (
@afracazo
) (UTC+11, 10 hours ahead of@seggenberger
)Maintainer review is optional for UX 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
🚫 Dangerrequested review from @philipjoyce
- Resolved by Sascha Eggenberger
Hey @philipjoyce
👋
Can you have a look at the UX change here?👀 TY!
Bundle size analysis [beta]
This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 3a48469e and 5624d6cd
✨ Special assetsEntrypoint / Name Size before Size after Diff Diff in percent average 3.55 MB 3.55 MB - 0.0 % mainChunk 2.04 MB 2.04 MB - 0.0 % 😨 Significant Growth: 1Expand
Entrypoint / Name Size before Size after Diff Diff in percent pages.projects.analytics.dashboards 1.61 MB 1.7 MB +86.56 KB 5.2 %
Your MR has at least one entrypoint growing significantly (more > 1 KB or 2%). If you write new or extend existing features, this is expected and there is nothing to worry about.
Please consider pinging someone from the FE Foundations (
@leipert
,@markrian
,@ohoral
or@pgascouvaillancourt
) for review, if you are unsure about the size increase.Note: We do not have exact data for 3a48469e. So we have used data from: 4ac8d593.
The intended commit has no webpack pipeline, so we chose the last commit with one before it.Please look at the full report for more details
Read more about how this report works.
Generated by
🚫 Dangerremoved review request for @philipjoyce
Allure report
allure-report-publisher
generated test report!e2e-review-qa:
❌ test report for 1a22cf4fexpand test summary
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | suites summary | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Plan | 49 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | ✅ | | Verify | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | ❗ | | Create | 28 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 29 | ✅ | | Manage | 33 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 37 | ❌ | | Govern | 27 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 32 | ❗ | | Framework sanity | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | ✅ | | Package | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ➖ | | Monitor | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ✅ | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Total | 162 | 1 | 12 | 7 | 175 | ❌ | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
e2e-package-and-test:
❌ test report for 696edda3expand test summary
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | suites summary | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Create | 754 | 0 | 122 | 12 | 876 | ❗ | | Verify | 239 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 259 | ❌ | | Analytics | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | ✅ | | Plan | 307 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 312 | ❌ | | Manage | 394 | 0 | 16 | 6 | 410 | ❗ | | Release | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | ✅ | | Fulfillment | 12 | 0 | 110 | 5 | 122 | ❗ | | Govern | 220 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 230 | ✅ | | Package | 81 | 1 | 103 | 5 | 185 | ❌ | | ModelOps | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | ➖ | | Secure | 35 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 40 | ✅ | | Configure | 1 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 16 | ✅ | | Systems | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | ✅ | | Framework sanity | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | ➖ | | Monitor | 42 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 42 | ✅ | | Data Stores | 11 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 14 | ✅ | | GitLab Metrics | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | ✅ | | Growth | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | ➖ | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Total | 2158 | 16 | 417 | 33 | 2591 | ❌ | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
Setting label(s) devopsplan groupproject management based on issues.
added devopsplan groupproject management labels
added maintenanceusability label
added typemaintenance label and removed featureenhancement typefeature labels