Start renaming CI/CD minutes to compute credits

changed milestone to %15.11

added Technical Writing devopsverify docsfeature documentation grouppipeline execution maintenancerefactor typemaintenance labels

assigned to @marcel.amirault

added sectionops label

changed the description

	7 Warnings
	This merge request is quite big (1306 lines changed), please consider splitting it into multiple merge requests.
	0e40ed0f: Commits that change 30 or more lines across at least 3 files should describe these changes in the commit body. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.
	76a60b63: Commits that change 30 or more lines across at least 3 files should describe these changes in the commit body. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.
	76321f23: Commits that change 30 or more lines across at least 3 files should describe these changes in the commit body. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.
	20603735: Commits that change 30 or more lines across at least 3 files should describe these changes in the commit body. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.
	This merge request changed files with disabled eslint rules. Please consider fixing them.
	There were no new or modified feature flag YAML files detected in this MR. If the changes here are already controlled under an existing feature flag, please add the feature flagexists. Otherwise, if you think the changes here don't need to be under a feature flag, please add the label feature flagskipped, and add a short comment about why we skipped the feature flag. For guidance on when to use a feature flag, please see the documentation.

	3 Messages
	This merge request requires a review from an Architecture Evolution Coach.
	This merge request adds or changes files that require a review from the Database team.
	This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge.

Architecture Evolution Review

This merge request requires a review from an Architecture Evolution Coach.

Following files, that may require the additional review, have been changed:

doc/architecture/blueprints/rate_limiting/index.md

This merge request requires a database review. To make sure these changes are reviewed, take the following steps:

Ensure the merge request has database and databasereview pending labels. If the merge request modifies database files, Danger will do this for you.
Prepare your MR for database review according to the docs.
Assign and mention the database reviewer suggested by Reviewer Roulette.

The following files require a review from the Database team:

db/migrate/20220610140605_change_public_projects_cost_factor.rb

Documentation review

The following files require a review from a technical writer:

doc/subscriptions/gitlab_com/compute_credits.md (Link to current live version)
doc/api/graphql/reference/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/api/groups.md (Link to current live version)
doc/api/settings.md (Link to current live version)
doc/api/users.md (Link to current live version)
doc/architecture/blueprints/rate_limiting/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/ci/environments/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/ci/pipelines/cicd_minutes.md (Link to current live version)
doc/ci/runners/saas/linux_saas_runner.md (Link to current live version)
doc/ci/runners/saas/windows_saas_runner.md (Link to current live version)
doc/ci/runners/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/ci/runners/runners_scope.md (Link to current live version)
doc/ci/troubleshooting.md (Link to current live version)
doc/development/cicd/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/development/internal_api/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/development/merge_request_concepts/rate_limits.md (Link to current live version)
doc/development/pipelines/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/development/sec/analyzer_development_guide.md (Link to current live version)
doc/development/reusing_abstractions.md (Link to current live version)
doc/subscriptions/gitlab_com/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/subscriptions/bronze_starter.md (Link to current live version)
doc/subscriptions/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/user/admin_area/settings/continuous_integration.md (Link to current live version)
doc/user/application_security/sast/analyzers.md (Link to current live version)
doc/user/group/index.md (Link to current live version)
doc/user/permissions.md (Link to current live version)

The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:

Metadata for the *.md files that you've changed. The first few lines of each *.md file identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change.
The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.

Disabled eslint rules

The following files have disabled eslint rules. Please consider fixing them:

ee/app/assets/javascripts/subscriptions/buy_addons_shared/constants.js

Run the following command for more details

node_modules/.bin/eslint --report-unused-disable-directives --no-inline-config \
  'ee/app/assets/javascripts/subscriptions/buy_addons_shared/constants.js'

Multiversion compatibility

This merge request updates GraphQL backend and frontend code.

To prevent an incident, ensure the updated frontend code is backwards compatible.

For more information, see the multiversion compatibility documentation.

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
backend	Ravi Kumar (`@rkumar555`) (UTC+2, 7 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)	Kerri Miller (`@kerrizor`) (UTC-7, 16 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)
database	Doug Stull (`@dstull`) (UTC-4, 13 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)	Mayra Cabrera (`@mayra-cabrera`) (UTC-6, 15 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)
frontend	Hinam Mehra (`@hmehra`) (UTC+10, 1 hour ahead of `@marcel.amirault`)	Miguel Rincon (`@mrincon`) (UTC+2, 7 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)
~"migration"	No reviewer available	No maintainer available
QA	John McDonnell (`@john.mcdonnell`) (UTC+1, 8 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)	Maintainer review is optional for QA
test for `spec/features/*`	Tiffany Rea (`@treagitlab`) (UTC-7, 16 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)	Maintainer review is optional for test for `spec/features/*`
~"Verify"	Reviewer review is optional for ~"Verify"	Stan Hu (`@stanhu`) (UTC-7, 16 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)
~"Verify"	Reviewer review is optional for ~"Verify"	Ammar Alakkad (`@aalakkad`) (UTC+3, 6 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)
~"Fulfillment::Utilization"	Reviewer review is optional for ~"Fulfillment::Utilization"	Ammar Alakkad (`@aalakkad`) (UTC+3, 6 hours behind `@marcel.amirault`)

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 Danger

mentioned in issue gitlab-com/Product#5218 (closed)

changed the description

added docs-only label

added 2980 commits

bfa5eeff...32a4813b - 2979 commits from branch master
c7b78f10 - Rename CI/CD minute to compute credit

Compare with previous version

added 2 commits

16e0aa0d - Rename CI/CD minutes in UI, specs, docs
75f1eea6 - Update pipeline minutes to compute credits

Compare with previous version

added Architecture Evolution Blueprint backend frontend labels

removed docs-only label

added 1 commit

3238a17a - Fix typos for rename

Compare with previous version

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 8b8c3a56 and 46e54d9c

Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	3.62 MB	3.62 MB	-	0.0 %
mainChunk	2.08 MB	2.08 MB	-	0.0 %

Note: We do not have exact data for 8b8c3a56. So we have used data from: a801cfd4.
The target commit was too new, so we used the latest commit from master we have info on.
It might help to rerun the bundle-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

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-review-qa: test report for d2eeec1f

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            suites summary                             |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                  | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Verify           | 10     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 10    | ✅     |
| Plan             | 49     | 0      | 1       | 0     | 50    | ✅     |
| Create           | 28     | 0      | 1       | 0     | 29    | ✅     |
| Data Stores      | 22     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 22    | ✅     |
| Govern           | 24     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 24    | ✅     |
| Manage           | 8      | 0      | 3       | 0     | 11    | ✅     |
| Monitor          | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Framework sanity | 9      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 10    | ✅     |
| Package          | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total            | 154    | 0      | 7       | 0     | 161   | ✅     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-package-and-test: test report for d2eeec1f

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            suites summary                             |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                  | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Fulfillment      | 12     | 0      | 110     | 2     | 122   | ❗     |
| Verify           | 270    | 0      | 20      | 240   | 290   | ❗     |
| Plan             | 304    | 0      | 0       | 150   | 304   | ❗     |
| Create           | 738    | 0      | 105     | 323   | 843   | ❗     |
| Release          | 30     | 0      | 0       | 25    | 30    | ❗     |
| Govern           | 231    | 0      | 0       | 230   | 231   | ❗     |
| Configure        | 1      | 0      | 15      | 0     | 16    | ✅     |
| Manage           | 199    | 2      | 33      | 96    | 234   | ❌     |
| Data Stores      | 181    | 0      | 3       | 60    | 184   | ❗     |
| Package          | 126    | 0      | 59      | 0     | 185   | ✅     |
| Monitor          | 54     | 0      | 1       | 50    | 55    | ❗     |
| Framework sanity | 0      | 0      | 5       | 0     | 5     | ➖     |
| Analytics        | 11     | 0      | 0       | 10    | 11    | ❗     |
| Secure           | 20     | 0      | 40      | 20    | 60    | ❗     |
| ModelOps         | 0      | 0      | 5       | 0     | 5     | ➖     |
| Systems          | 19     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 19    | ✅     |
| Growth           | 0      | 0      | 10      | 0     | 10    | ➖     |
| GitLab Metrics   | 2      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 3     | ✅     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total            | 2198   | 2      | 407     | 1206  | 2607  | ❌     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

added 1 commit

2d82d56a - Update jest and rspec specs

Compare with previous version

changed the description

added 1 commit

8120f3e6 - Update jest and rspec specs

Compare with previous version

marked this merge request as ready

changed the description

OK, review time! The pipeline is green, I've verified things in the GDK, so I think this is good to go. I did not realize that all the marketing pages were already updated to the new language, while the product itself still uses the old language. The actual changes to the product are all unscheduled, as far as I can tell. Perhaps we can get it all done in one go if we all work together?

@sselhorn Could you take a look at the docs and UI text updates? It's almost all just renaming, as expected, but I did split out the documentation for purchasing compute credits into a standalone page under doc/subscriptions/gitlab_com/. With how it looks under the new name, and with purchasing credits purely a .com thing, it seemed to make more sense in the new place.

@pburdette Since you have already done some work on this topic (#376270 (closed)), could you handle the frontend review? I'm guessing that this might have been something you needed to do in the future anyways, so I maybe this saves you some work in the long run!

Sorry about the number of frontend files changed, but there are no changes to code. It's all renames in UI strings and frontend spec descriptions. I did it mostly manually: I grep'ed to find the files, but made the changes by hand to make sure the text was good (find and replace would not have worked for all cases). I ran the full Jest suite locally, and it ran green.

@fabiopitino Similarly, as you are already familiar with this topic, could you handle the backend review? Sorry to you too for the number of backend files changes. Like Payton, I'm guessing you might have been asked to author the backend changes, so I hope this helps you too! There are no changes to backend code, it's all just renames, aligning all the language on the new standardized term.

Finally, @ipedowitz as the DRI for the overall renaming effort, could you take a look and give the on behalf of Product?

Thanks @marcel.amirault

Looks good to me, thank you for replacing all of these instances

@jivanvl can you help maintain this one?

Just one comment about an extra m, approving ahead of time @marcel.amirault

Thanks @marcel.amirault! This is a huge change I've left 2 small suggestions and approved - cc @allison.browne

Thanks a lot @jivanvl @fabiopitino! Unfortunately, pushing the suggested fixes/rebasing dropped your approvals, but we can see them in the MR history. I guess we just need to pass this over for final review/merge?

@dbalexandre You are the "lucky" maintainer roulette picked... My sincere apologies! Could you take the last review? Hopefully the related issues and description explain everything clearly, but there's also some details in !115475 (comment 1345735933) about how the UI no longer matches the marketing as it's already renamed outside of GitLab itself.

@sselhorn FYI, I've applied all your suggestions as-is, so I think we're good to go docs-wise. Just a quick ping to let you know I'm forwarding this off to merge, and if you spot any more docs issues I'll address them in a followup.

No more comments from me, all good thanks.

@dbalexandre Looks like we need another review from ~"group::billing and subscription management", so I'll remove you from the MR while we wait for that review

@sheldonled I see that we need an approval from grouputilization too, so could you check the changes in the Usage Quotas files?

@marcel.amirault approved! Let me know if you need anything else related to that page

requested review from @sselhorn, @pburdette, @fabiopitino, and @ipedowitz

@marcel.amirault I love that you went ahead and did this work! Can you make sure that the Utilization, Purchase, Billing & Subscription, and Verify teams are aware that you're doing this work? They all have open issues--see the list here: gitlab-com/Product#5218 (closed)

I think the Fulfillment teams will still have to update the Customers Portal with these changes...

@sselhorn Sure thing! I've applied your suggestions to the docs (and closed the other threads, as the graphQL changes were done with the script, the downstream pipeline failure is unrelated, etc)

@ofernandez2 @alex_martin @tgolubeva @jreporter FYI, this MR is to address all the inconsistent language within GitLab itself, standardizing on the new compute credit terminology that we're now using on the marketing site. This resolves the Verify team issue below, and is related to the Utilization and Purchase epics on the topic. It doesn't seem Billing & Subscription Management (B&SM) has any open issues about it yet.

Verify: [Verify] Use "compute minutes" instead of "CI/C... (#342813 - closed) ( Resolves this)
Purchase: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9503+
Utilization: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9508+

If Purchase/Utilization/B&SM is the DRI for any in-product features using this language, it'll be handled in this MR as well. This does not apply to the Customer Portal, handbook, or anything outside of GitLab itself.

The main issue is that we already had a lot of inconsistency with the language everywhere. Now with the marketing site updated to use compute credits, we're really out of sync, and I think it's really important to get everything aligned ASAP. If the naming gets tweaked in the future, it'll be easier to handle as it should all be compute credits everywhere in GitLab, and easier to run an automatic find/replace.

This is awesome, thanks so much @marcel.amirault @sselhorn.

@fulfillment-group/product-managers mind reviewing from Fulfillment's end how this may impact any of our surfaces? We should look at updates to CDot as well.

@ofernandez2 do you agree this is still a priority3 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/Product/-/issues/5291 for Fulfillment groups? Right now prioritizing higher priority items for both ~"group::purchase" and grouputilization

@alex_martin yes, this is still lower priority for our section, though hopefully it's not a lot of effort.

For this particular MR, I just wanted your eyes on the MR for awareness and in case you'd like to review what's already being updated.

FYI @shreyasagarwal @csouthard for your awareness

@esybrant fyi on this

@rhardarson - would you please nominate/assign an engineer to review these changes (there's a lot)? I'm especially curious how the changes might interact with the Zuora subscription CI Minutes rate plans that will not be renamed.

Thanks! FYI, my goal was to align all the UI, but not change any actual backend code, API endpoints, etc... so as to not interfere with the integrations.

@lmeckley can you please review this?

As @tgolubeva mentioned there will be some inconsistency since copy is being updated but Zuora rate plans are not. One such area would be purchasing ~~CI/CD minutes~~ compute credits on the /usage_quotatab of a namespace and the /buy_minutes (you can access these two pages by being the owner of a namespace)

Example

@sheldonled you probably want to keep an eye on these pages as well.

@marcel.amirault I see from the screenshots section that there are a number of mentions of CI/CD minutes still. Checking that this is intentional?

@rhardarson Ah, I think those were the before screenshots. I've added labels to make this clearer.

As for the /buy_minutes page, I wasn't able to test that in the GDK, despite simulating SaaS...

@marcel.amirault I was able to access the buy minutes page. I also added a before/after to the MR description

@tgolubeva this is what the minutes purchase screen looks like with the combination of CI/compute credits language.

Are we wanting to also change the URL to something like buy_compute_credits instead of buy_minutes @marcel.amirault? That doesn't need to be handled in this MR necessarily, but I wanted to check if that's already on your radar.

IMO, I think we should reconsider updating the naming on the purchase page. Because we're pulling in the product name from Zuora (which will still say CI minutes), it's a really confusing mix of terminology.

Particularly the part where it says 1000 CI minutes pack (x1) and then right below it $10 per pack of 1,000 compute credits is quite confusing.

In my mind, there are a couple of options here:

Don't update the purchase page to use the term compute credits because the combination is confusing
Use custom language on the purchase page instead of the actual product name from Zuora (we've done similar things before, but it can be complicated for maintenance)

@rhardarson I don't seem to be able to access the /groups/GROUPNAME/-/usage_quotas#pipelines-quota-tab page locally for any of my groups I'm only seeing /groupname/project/-/usage_quotas#storage-quota-tab available, which doesn't seem to have a purchase link.

I tried to look at the example link you provided, but I believe I don't have permissions to view that page.

@lmeckley Here's a screengrab of the fulfillment-group usage quotas page:

@lmeckley I think pipelines are only available at the group/namespace level Usage Quota not project. https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/pipelines/cicd_minutes.html#view-usage-quota-reports-for-a-group

Similar on GDK.

notice also the Buy additional minutes button which is not in the screenshots above.

I've pushed a fix to attempt to address the mismatch with the terminology that Zuora is feeding to the buy credits page, see !115475 (comment 1351714984)

Thanks @marcel.amirault! I've unassigned myself given the discussion around terminology. I'll be out on PTO next week, but feel free to ping either @rhardarson or @tgolubeva when the terminology is solidified so we can re-review!

I think pipelines are only available at the group/namespace level Usage Quota not project.

That's correct. Here's a screenshot of Usage Quotas Page on the pipelines tab with this MR's branch:

@marcel.amirault A few comments for you. Looks good overall!

removed review request for @sselhorn

Thanks for putting this together, @marcel.amirault, this is awesome! FYI that there's still an open question on if we want to generally use Compute vs Compute credit/s. See this thread for relevant context: gitlab-com/Product#5218 (comment 1335605037)

I have this on my 1:1 agenda with Justin on Monday, so hope to have a definitive answer on that then.

I spoke with @justinfarris and he said I'm good with "compute credits" so good to proceed. Thanks, @marcel.amirault!

resolved all threads

added 1 commit

bb263b24 - Apply 4 suggestion(s) to 1 file(s)

Compare with previous version

approved this merge request

Start renaming CI/CD minutes to compute credits

What does this MR do?

Related issues

Screenshots

Author's checklist

Reviewer's checklist

Activity

Architecture Evolution Review

Documentation review

Disabled eslint rules

Multiversion compatibility

Reviewer roulette

Bundle size analysis [beta]

Special assets

Allure report

Start renaming CI/CD minutes to compute credits

What does this MR do?

Related issues

Screenshots

Author's checklist

Reviewer's checklist

Merge request reports

Activity

Architecture Evolution Review

Documentation review

Disabled eslint rules

Multiversion compatibility

Reviewer roulette

Bundle size analysis [beta]

Special assets

Allure report