For lazy(mobile) people like me https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-68975 https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-69070
The first feels like the jquery package just doesn't export a cjs file. So possibly just needs updating. I probably could rewrite it to use modern js and no jquery. I'm totally 100% in favor of removing all the @jenkins-cd modules that were created for blueocean. They are a frustrating mess. Also on a side note, does the project have access to that scope? I'm going to be making a helpdesk ticket soon to see if I can get access to one of the Jenkins npm accounts/orgs On Fri., Jul. 22, 2022, 9:39 a.m. Basil Crow, <[email protected]> wrote: > The frontend in core has exactly two (2) unit tests: > > war/src/test/js/pluginSetupWizard.spec.js > war/src/test/js/widgets/config/tabbar.spec.js > > Both of these date from 2016. They use an old version of Jest from > https://jestjs.io and @jenkins-cd/js-test from > https://github.com/jenkinsci/js-test which has not been updated since > 2016. Newer versions of Jest require significant changes in consumers > as described in JENKINS-68975. @jenkins-cd/js-test has many > problematic transitive dependencies as described in JENKINS-69070. > > I could not find any usages of the @jenkins-cd/js-test framework in > plugins beside Blue Ocean, which is not being actively developed and > dates back to the same time period. > > The status quo does not seem sustainable to me. While resolving > JENKINS-68975 and JENKINS-69070 are not out of the question, I wonder > whether we feel that the expected value to be gained is worth the > trouble. Recall that there are only two such tests in core, so I feel > the value being provided by them is minimal. > > Perhaps it is time to declare the end of this particular journey and > delete these two tests, the use of Jest in core, and the use of > @jenkins-cd/js-test in core. If such a framework is desired, it might > be easier to start over rather than to modernize the existing > framework. The advantage would be a much simpler dependency tree and > easier maintenance. The disadvantage would be losing these two tests, > one for the setup wizard and one for some sort of tab bar. > > I am inclined to vote in favor of ripping this out, unless someone > wants to take on JENKINS-68975 and JENKINS-69070. Does anyone have any > thoughts about this? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAFwNDjpsBCRAptHcou6nreTUU4UTy%2BwifV2pc9U-YXnhNdNZUA%40mail.gmail.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAG%3D_Duseg%3DEMeEFXPPEkxfnZX1TXjFjO0Q6Tf%2BbAeqsfmMCFYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
