Use CI Icon query fragment in artifacts table

What does this MR do and why?

Use CI Icon query fragment in artifacts table

MR acceptance checklist

Please evaluate this MR against the MR acceptance checklist. It helps you analyze changes to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

Screenshots or screen recordings

How to set up and validate locally

1. Visit any project
2. Go to Build -> Artifacts (e.g. http://gdk.test:3000/top-group/top-project/-/artifacts)
3. Verify the icon with the resulting job is rendered correctly

Related to #423028 (closed)

changed milestone to %16.10

added Category:Fleet Visibility devopsverify frontend grouprunner maintenancerefactor sectionci typemaintenance workflowready for development labels

assigned to @mrincon

1 Warning

⚠

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.

Reviewer roulette

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
frontend	@slashmanov (UTC+4, 3 hours ahead of author)	@kushalpandya (UTC+5.5, 4.5 hours ahead of author)
~"Verify"	Reviewer review is optional for ~"Verify"	@mfluharty (UTC+0, 1 hour behind author)

Please check reviewer's status!

• Reviewer is available!
• Reviewer is unavailable!

Please refer to documentation page for guidance on how you can benefit from the Reviewer Roulette, or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

If needed, you can retry the 🔁 danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by 🚫 Danger

E2E Test Result Summary

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: ✅ test report for dd93640b

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Verify      | 31     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 31    | ✅     |
| Create      | 8      | 0      | 3       | 0     | 11    | ✅     |
| Plan        | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Govern      | 3      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 3     | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Package     | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Data Stores | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 52     | 0      | 4       | 0     | 56    | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-package-and-test: ✅ test report for dd93640b

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Verify      | 138    | 0      | 27      | 0     | 165   | ✅     |
| Create      | 148    | 0      | 24      | 0     | 172   | ✅     |
| Plan        | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Govern      | 6      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 6     | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Package     | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 312    | 0      | 53      | 0     | 365   | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

deleted the 423028-refactor-related_issuable branch. This merge request now targets the master branch

changed the description

removed workflowready for development label

added 282 commits

• 63fb5cdd...4a71a386 - 281 commits from branch master
• dd93640b - Use CI Icon query fragment in artifacts table

Compare with previous version

@mfluharty would you mind being the sole reviewer of this change? It's a very simple refactor. Thanks!

requested review from @mfluharty

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 27215940 and dd93640b

✨ Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	4.22 MB	4.22 MB	-	0.0 %
mainChunk	3.22 MB	3.22 MB	-	0.0 %

---

Note: We do not have exact data for 27215940. So we have used data from: b08b037d.
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 🚫 Danger

approved this merge request

👋 @mfluharty, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request has been approved. To ensure we don't only run predictive pipelines, and we don't break master, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

Please wait for the pipeline to start before resolving this discussion and set auto-merge for the new pipeline. See merging a merge request for more details.

added pipeline:mr-approved label

resolved all threads

enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for 736feaf4 succeeds

merged

@mfluharty, did you forget to run a pipeline before you merged this work? Based on our code review process, if the latest pipeline was created more than 4 hours ago, you should:

1. Ensure the merge request is not in Draft status.
2. Start a pipeline (especially important for Community contribution merge requests).
3. Set the merge request to auto-merge.

This is a guideline, not a rule. Please consider replying to this comment for transparency.

This message was generated automatically. You're welcome to improve it.

Sorry bot, I can't win here

The pipeline that was running when I set auto-merge says it took 145 minutes 28 seconds, but in real time it took over five hours including downstream pipelines. If we define stale as "created more than four hours ago" and the pipeline consistently takes more than that, then the false positives will cause us to tune out this nudge entirely.

• At 17:37 UTC: I approved this MR, so a pipeline was created by this bot, and I set it to auto-merge.
• More than four hours passed.
• At 23:24 UTC: the pipeline succeeded, so the MR was automatically merged.