Merge staging into master #718
Conversation
* feat: API Docs preview and version switcher * feat: Add design tokens and style-guide page (#311) * feat: API Docs preview and version switcher * feat: API Page Types * feat: Light/dark toggle in nav
- Add API Summary section at top of page - Fix dark mode on learn page - Add all API doc sections - Fix API object typings
* chore: Eslint / Prettier integration. * chore: Change ext order to overwrite eslint rules * chore: Add build to gitignore * chore: Eslint fixes after config change * chore: Update yarn.lock after rebase * chore: Add eslint-plugin-jest and extend w/ reccs * chore: Disable no-var-requires for .js files * chore: Remove format-check from test script * chore: Fix eslint errors in js files * chore: Update husky pre-push to use lint script * chore: Create new .eslintrc config * chore: Update lint script, add react settings to eslint config * chore: Ignore test dir when running lint script * chore: Add airbnb config and jest env to eslintrc * chore: Disable react/jsx-filename-extension * chore: Recover .prettierrc config file that was deleted * chore: Extend eslint config with prettier/react * chore: Fix all but a few eslint errors * chore: Update eslint-plugin-prettier * chore: Disable prefer-default-exports rule * chore: Fix eslint errors after merging with staging * chore: Fix eslint errors in konami code * chore: Disable import/extensions and consistent-return rules * chore: Set return type for setPage hook in click handler to void * fix: Clean up some errors after all the merge fixing
* fix: Only disable next line for react/danger in article * feat: Create ReleaseToggle component * feat: Create ReleaseCards component * chore: Add material-design placeholder icons to release cards * feat: Create and use detectOS util function * fix: Check if navigator is defined before using, fixes ssr
* feat: Enhanced Dark Mode Toggle Features This adds a new `utils/DarkModeController` controller wrapped in a new `components/controls` component.
I'm not a huge fan of the current text: "The power of JavaScript minus the browser" This is inaccurate as Node.js is offering a ton of interfaces and support e.g. system IO that the Browser doesn't offer. Also, while it is not a browser I do like to think of Node.js as an active participate in the Web Platform... the comparison here has a negative charge that I don't think does us any benefit.
* feat: Add Footer component to layout
* test: Add Test for Footer component
* test: Updated snapshots changed by Footer component
* style: Add right margin to footer links and refactored styles
* feat: Add blur event to dropDown
Summary: Add onBlur event to dropDownButton so the user can click
anywhere outside of dropdown menu to close it
* test: Update footer snapshot
* chore: Move eslint ingore pattern from package.json
to .eslintignore
* fix: Fixed onBlur event firing even if dropdown is closed
* chore: Removed Emoji Flags from footer dropdown
Emoji flags are not supported by all platforms, E.g. On windows
Co-authored-by: Ben Halverson <[email protected]>
* docs(contributing.md): Added details on how to contribute #396 * docs(contributing.md): Updated the getting started section
* feat(banner): Added a new banner component #332 * style(banner.tsx): Added additional styling Added additional styling to match the mockup more closely * test(snapshot): Updated snapshot for banner.tsx * Fix topbanner dark mode (#1) * fix: Banner styling for dark mode * test(snapshot): Updated snapshot for banner.tsx * style: Lint Co-authored-by: Saleh Abdel Motaal <[email protected]>
* fix(banner.tsx): Set border property to bannerButton css to avoid border styles from browsers user agent stylesheet * fix(banner.tsx): Set transparent as border color * fix(banner.tsx): Update banner.tsx snapshot
|
Merging it now! Congratulations! |
|
Still seeing the old version on https://nodejs.dev |
|
@MylesBorins Could you check build details: |
|
⏰Just a kind reminder that this is still not up |
|
Hey All, I'm looking into this now, but I have to say I'm pretty disappointed to see that ya'll landed this. A couple points
I'm going to dig into the build stuff right now but I'm really upset with how this was handled. |
|
I went ahead and reviewed the staging merge commit and found 3 regressions and have opened a PR to fix them. This was primarily in build tool + content https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.dev/issues/735 I'm unsure if there are similar regressions for styling or gatsby, but I suggest that folks do another review... seeing that there were this many issues across content I'm unconvinced there are not other regressions.... further this is not a great look for how ready this was to land. It does not appear that folks really gave this the level of review they should have for a change of this calibre. At this point I don't think there is any reason to revert, but I'm going to review our governance and see if we need to implement changes to ensure something like this does not happen again. |
|
I’m sorry you are upset and disappointed. Even though I didn’t work directly on this PR, I feel a bit of shame. There are things we could have done better in this PR and I will collect those issues in the hopes of having some sort of postmortem so we can aim to do better in the future. I hope that you recognize that a lot of work did go into this effort though and I appreciate all of the team members who are playing a role in moving this effort forward. Thanks for your Support @MylesBorins |
|
Hey all, I'm also quite disappointed to see that this landed so prematurely. Aside from a number of visual regressions, dev environment regressions, unapproved use of 3rd party company logos, and missing features, we also missed out on the opportunity to coordinate a larger marketing push. I'll be in the next WR meeting and would love to help lead a discussion on https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.dev/issues/737 (thank you @saulonunesdev). We can use it as a retrospective on where process broke down here, and how we can improve moving forward. In addition, I think it's time to take a step back and evaluate our roadmap again. No only will that help me get back up to speed since I've been absent the past few months – but finding realignment on team goals will help to prevent this from happing in the future. |
|
Welcome back @amiller-gh |
|
Maybe we can add a |
I don't think this is true. According to @brianwarner of the Linux foundation. Each company that was listed is a member.
In the openJS slack I asked If we had permission to use the logos.
What features are those? |
|
@benhalverson PayPal and LinkedIn are not members of the foundation and were on the main page. Independent of whether we have a legal sign on on using logos it is extremely poor form to put them on a landing page without giving the companies marketing teams a heads up that they are being included. I explicitly asked them to be removed in my block on the initial PR and did not think I needed to make it explicit in this PR as I did not expect this to land in the weekend with notice being given on Friday. I'm going to have to step away from this repo for a couple days because I'm pretty upset tbqh, I feel that my objections were ignored and the consensus process was not followed edit: to be clear because I noticed you linked to the LF member list. We don't have cart Blanche authority to use the logo of any of member any way we want on any website we spin up. |
The specific conversation you're referring to asks about member companies of the OpenJS Foundation. The OpenJS Foundation and Linux Foundation are not the same thing. FWIW, I would recommend reversing this PR based on this alone - it potentially exposes us to legal issues.
I'm not sure how this is unclear. In @MylesBorins comment (#654 (comment)), there's a pretty large list of features that are completely missing or broken. Especially since we've been pointing people to Outside of responding directly to replies, I'd like to echo the discontent that @MylesBorins voiced. There was an explicit, hard block on a PR with feedback that was ignored. Instead of addressing the feedback and working with the author of that feedback, the PR was closed with the express intent of opening up a PR when staging was in a better state and which could be reviewed by CommComm / TSC. In opening a new PR and merging it, that hard block was ignored and non-trivial feedback was not collected. I'd like to recommend folks look to our Membership Guidelines - which CommComm and TSC are actively held to, but are generally useful for collaboration! - for inspiration on how to move forward in this instance:
I know everyone's trying their best. |
|
Hey Guys, Just a Clarification. All the Work is based on the figma There you can see the logo Companies and accordingly with slack discussion and the #637 issue discussion, no one raised concerns about using those logos. |
|
See #654 (comment) I explicitly blocked on this an had 1:1 conversations with both Ben and alexandr making it clear that the staging site should not land with those logos. Digging in heels here is not making the situation better |
|
I'll simplify all of the discussion here by getting to the root of the problem. I blocked the original PR as I did not feel staging was ready to land. That PR was closed in lieu of this one I did not explicitly block this pr from landing because I trusted the team to follow our consensus seeking process, specifically that I should sign off on this or at least give some sort of signal that I agreed with this landing. I had 1:1 conversations with more than 1 team member outlining the issues I had. This PR was landed without those issues resolved and no attempt was made to get my review. This is a violation of the spirit of our collaboration process and undermines the governance of this repo and project. It is not ok. I'm not going to push for a reversion as I don't think it will accomplish much, we already fixed the issues with the logo. The concern raised by Tierney about broken links is valid though, and worth looking into. I've had to rewrite this last paragraph multiple times... But in short this experience combined with folks defending their actions rather than remediating has me questioning my continued involvement in the nodejs.dev project, that is really not ok. |
|
Thanks for explaining @MylesBorins i was not aware of all the facts. Sorry that we came to this point. |
Description
Replaces #717 to get the latest staging branch into master so we can start with a new base to continue development.
I go into this more in this issue #711
Fixed all conflicts and linting issues
@nodejs/website-redesign
@nodejs/community-committee
Related Issues
#654 #711