feat: [M3-8837] - Add LKE-E feature flag #11259
Conversation
mjac0bs
force-pushed
the
M3-8837-add-lke-enterprise-feature-flag
branch
from
9dd6ce7 to
53d3170
Compare
| server.use( | ||
| http.get('*/account/betas/apl', () => { | ||
| return HttpResponse.json(accountBeta); | ||
| }) | ||
| ); | ||
| const { result } = renderHook(() => useAPLAvailability(), { | ||
| wrapper: (ui) => wrapWithTheme(ui, { flags: { apl: true } }), | ||
|
|
||
| queryMocks.useAccountBetaQuery.mockReturnValue({ | ||
| data: accountBeta, | ||
| }); | ||
| await waitFor(() => { | ||
| expect(result.current.showAPL).toBe(true); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had to modify this test with the addition of the useIsLkeEnterpriseEnabled tests, due to the use of feature flags in both.
In the words of the wise @jdamore-linode, the APL test needed to be modified because:
the vi.mock for
useFlagsthat technically broke the APL availability test, because theuseAccountBetaQueryfunction callsuseFlags. And sinceuseAccountBetaQuerywasn’t getting mocked butuseFlagswas,useFlagswas responding with an empty object causinguseAccountBetaQueryto always return an object indicating that APL is disabled.
(And so the APL test would fail.)
In the interest of using one mocking solution in this file (not both server.use and vi.mock), I switched this one over to using the queryMocks, as well.
| /** | ||
| * @TODO LKE-E - M3-8838: Clean up after released to GA, if not otherwise in use | ||
| */ | ||
| export const useAccountBeta = () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not to be confused with the useAccountBetaQuery... if there's a suggestion for a better name here, I'm open to it!
mjac0bs
requested review from
carrillo-erik,
pmakode-akamai and
hana-akamai
and removed request for
a team
|
Coverage Report: ✅ |
Any thoughts about adding a Mock Service Worker preset for this? Doesn't help too much now since there aren't any UI changes, but might be handy once development ramps up a bit more. I took a quick stab at a preset (that does the absolute bare minimum, there's probably a lot of room for improvement): // New file at `src/mocks/presets/extra/account/lkeEnterpriseEnabled.ts` or similar
import { http } from 'msw';
import {
accountFactory,
} from 'src/factories';
import { makeResponse } from 'src/mocks/utilities/response';
import type { MockPresetExtra } from 'src/mocks/types';
const mockLkeEnabledCapability = () => {
return [
http.get('*/v4*/account', async ({ request }) => {
return makeResponse(
accountFactory.build({
capabilities: [
// Other account capabilities might be necessary here, too...
// TODO Make a `defaultAccountCapabilities` factory.
'Kubernetes',
'Kubernetes Enterprise',
],
})
);
}),
]
};
export const lkeEnterpriseEnabledPreset: MockPresetExtra = {
desc: 'Mock account with LKE Enterprise capability',
group: { id: 'Account', type: 'select' },
handlers: [mockLkeEnabledCapability],
id: 'account:lke-enterprise-enabled',
label: 'LKE Enterprise Enabled',
};(And then there are some accompanying changes required to the |
mjac0bs
force-pushed
the
M3-8837-add-lke-enterprise-feature-flag
branch
from
3cf7aeb to
7ea9f24
Compare
|
Putting this back up for review with some updates:
|
Cloud Manager UI test results🎉 452 passing tests on test run #5 ↗︎
|
Description 📝
We will need a feature flag in Launch Darkly to gate access to the UI changes for LKE-Enterprise.
Changes 🔄
lkeEnterpriseflag exists in Launch Darkly.useIsLkeEnterpriseEnabledhook handles the enablement of the feature.How to test 🧪
Prerequisites
(How to setup test environment)
OR
Verification steps
(How to verify changes)
KubernetesLanding.tsx, console.log the return value, and confirm you see a v4beta/account network request.As an Author, I have considered 🤔
As an Author, before moving this PR from Draft to Open, I confirmed ✅