Fix GroupActivityCard relative metric links
What does this MR do and why?
Account for a custom relative_url_root
when generating metric links on the Group page.
How to set up and validate locally
- Set
relative_url_root
to/path
:
gdk config set relative_url_root /path
gdk reconfigure
gdk restart
- Visit any group page: http://gdk.test:3000/path/flightjs
- Validate that the metric links are working as expected
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.
Related to #411315 (closed)
Merge request reports
Activity
changed milestone to %16.1
added bugfunctional devopsplan groupoptimize sectiondev typebug labels
assigned to @apennells
- A deleted user
added frontend label
1 Warning d916229d: 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. 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 Halil Coban (
@halilcoban
) (UTC+2, 6 hours ahead of@apennells
)Sincheol (David) Kim (
@dskim_gitlab
) (UTC+9.5, 13.5 hours ahead of@apennells
)frontend Lorenz van Herwaarden (
@lorenzvanherwaarden
) (UTC+2, 6 hours ahead of@apennells
)Paul Gascou-Vaillancourt (
@pgascouvaillancourt
) (UTC-4, same timezone as@apennells
)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- Resolved by Alex Pennells
@aalakkad Would you be able to give the initial review here?
requested review from @aalakkad
added workflowin review label
Bundle size analysis [beta]
This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 61210662 and d916229d
Special assetsEntrypoint / Name Size before Size after Diff Diff in percent average 4.02 MB 4.02 MB - 0.0 % mainChunk 2.88 MB 2.88 MB - 0.0 %
Note: We do not have exact data for 61210662. So we have used data from: 324396fb.
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
DangerAllure report
allure-report-publisher
generated test report!e2e-review-qa:
test report for d916229dexpand test summary
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | suites summary | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Monitor | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ✅ | | Plan | 50 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 51 | ✅ | | Data Stores | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | ✅ | | Create | 27 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 28 | ✅ | | Verify | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | ✅ | | Govern | 24 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 24 | ❗ | | Framework sanity | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | ✅ | | Manage | 8 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 11 | ✅ | | Package | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ➖ | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Total | 154 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 161 | ❗ | +------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
@aalakkad
, 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:
added pipeline:mr-approved label
requested review from @pgascouvaillancourt and removed review request for @aalakkad
- Resolved by Alex Pennells
- Resolved by Alex Pennells
- Resolved by Paul Gascou-Vaillancourt
@apennells this looks good, but I'm under the impression that we could make things a bit more robust by letting the backend generate the right paths for us: !120789 (comment 1392771316). This could be done in a follow-up, but since this targets %16.1, it might make sense to revisit this MR directly. Let me know what you think.
Edited by Paul Gascou-Vaillancourt
removed review request for @pgascouvaillancourt
requested review from @pgascouvaillancourt
- A deleted user
added backend label
enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for e30a7160 succeeds
mentioned in commit d6ec7ab8
added workflowstaging-canary label and removed workflowin review label
added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging-canary label
added workflowstaging label and removed workflowcanary label
added workflowproduction label and removed workflowstaging label
added workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label and removed workflowproduction label
added workflowpost-deploy-db-production label and removed workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label
added releasedcandidate label
mentioned in merge request kubitus-project/kubitus-installer!2224 (merged)