The error notification was being shown on creation of an intention. This
was as a result of #4572 and/or #4572 and has not been included in a
release.
This includes a fix, plus tests to try to prevent any further regression.
1. Addition of external source icons for services marked as such.
2. New %with-tooltip css component (wip)
3. New 'no healthcheck' icon as external sources might not have
healthchecks, also minus icon on node cards in the service detail view
4. If a service doesn't have healthchecks, we use the [Services] tabs as the
default instead of the [Health Checks] tab in the Service detail page.
5. `css-var` helper. The idea here is that it will eventually be
replaced with pure css custom properties instead of having to use JS. It
would be nice to be able to build the css variables into the JS at build
time (you'd probably still want to specify in config which variables you
wanted available in JS), but that's possible future work.
Lastly there is probably a tiny bit more testing edits here than usual,
I noticed that there was an area where the dynamic mocking wasn't
happening, it was just using the mocks from consul-api-double, the mocks
I was 'dynamically' setting happened to be the same as the ones in
consul-api-double. I've fixed this here also but it wasn't effecting
anything until actually made certain values dynamic.
* Move notification texts to a slightly different layer (#4572)
* Further Simplify/refactor the actions/notification layer (#4573)
1. Move the 'with-feedback' actions to a 'with-blocking-action' mixin
which better describes what it does
2. Additional set of unit tests almost over the entire layer to prove
things work/add confidence for further changes
The multiple 'with-action' mixins used for every 'index/edit' combo are
now reduced down to only contain the functionality related to their
specific routes, i.e. where to redirect.
The actual functionality to block and carry out the action and then
notify are 'almost' split out so that their respective classes/objects do
one thing and one thing 'well'.
Mixins are chosen for the moment as the decoration approach used by
mixins feels better than multiple levels of inheritence, but I would
like to take this fuether in the future to a 'compositional' based
approach.
There is still possible further work to be done here, but I'm a lot
happier now this is reduced down into separate parts.
* Add some tests to check the correct GET API endpoints are called
* Refactor adapters
1. Add integration tests for `urlFor...` and majority `handleResponse` methods
2. Refactor out `handleResponse` a little more into single/batch/boolean
methods
3. Move setting of the `Datacenter` property into the `handleResponse`
method, basically the same place that the uid is being set using the dc
parsed form the URL
4. Add some Errors for if you don't pass ids to certain `urlFor` methods
We now essentially do 2 redirects if you hit a `folder/`
1. If you visit `/ui/dc1/kv/folder/`, `consul` will redirect you to `/ui/dc1/kv/folder`
2. Once redirected to `/ui/dc1/kv/folder` via a 301, use ember/history
API to redirect you back to `/ui/dc1/kv/folder/`.
Bit long winded, but achieves what we want without having to get stuck
into `consul` itself to remove the 301 for the UI
1. There are various things tests that can just have intentions added
into them, like filters and such like, add intentions to these
2. Start thinking about being able to negate steps easily, which will
lead on to a cleanup of the steps
This enables people to enter things using the mouse to paste for
example, plus possible other things.
As an aside it also answers my query regarding `fillIn` for testing,
nothing needs to be actually _typed_ anymore! Doh
1. Check the dc's model for both dcs list and the requested dc.
2. If the dc model doesn't exist use and empty array for dcs and a fake
dc with the Name 'Error' as we can't even trust what is in the
`paramsFor`
1. Also add index.html things to test/index.html
2. Use content-for to hedge against keeping content in sync (requires an
addon)
3. Test passes but only when run on its own, as we need to rely on
content in the QUnit runner, theoretically it is not running our test in
isolation. Skipping the test for the moment so we don't have a filaing
test when all run together
John Cowen