+1 for removing it. > The status quo does not seem sustainable to me. Agreed. If we want to investigated into frontend tests in the future, we should use something more maintainable, rather a bunch of standalone repositories bundling ancient or detached plugins. Could likely archive all these repositories if there's no need and demand to keep them up.
> Also on a side note, does the project have access to that scope? All packages are published under a personal account, https://www.npmjs.com/~tfennelly, https://www.npmjs.com/~jenkinsci may also be operated by tfennelly. On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 18:52:09 UTC+2 [email protected] wrote: > 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/60759c57-385d-4f11-9c3f-42129f886570n%40googlegroups.com.
