Rewrite the build history widget

[janfaracik]

This PR implements the changes discussed https://community.jenkins.io/t/revamped-build-history-widget/10944. In essence it's a rewrite/redesign of the build history widget. The goal is to be cleaner and simpler, whilst still retaining existing functionality and density.

Before

After

What's changed

• The JS has been rewritten and does away with a lot of the complicated layout logic in favour of CSS flex/grid.
• A new card component has been added (with the intention of replacing the existing widget component) that supports inline actions
• Builds now group by date, keeping the UI simpler/easier to read
• RSS feed has been moved to a dropdown, rather than a fixed button row
• Build overflow menus are now always present on the right of the link

What doesn't work

• ✅ Pagination controls are always visible at the moment
• ✅ The list doesn't auto refresh at the moment
• ✅ Items with long names/lots of actions don't scale very well

Testing done

• See Rewrite the build history widget #9148 (comment) for a view of the scenarios tested
  • Normal scenarios work as expected (e.g. short build names, one or two badges)
  • Queued items look as expected
  • Items with plain text/HTML descriptions work as expected
  • Items with long names/lots of badges wrap as expected

Proposed changelog entries

• Update the design of the build history widget

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Edit tasklist title

Beta Give feedback Tasklist Submitter checklist, more options

• Rename
• Copy markdown
• Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?

Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.

Cancel Delete

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.

   The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see [examples](https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/blob/master/content/_data/changelogs/weekly.yml)). Fill in the **Proposed upgrade guidelines** section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.

   The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.

   There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with `@Restricted` or have `@since TODO` Javadocs, as appropriate.

   New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
5. New deprecations are annotated with `@Deprecated(since = "TODO")` or `@Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO")`, if applicable.

   New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call `eval` to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see [documentation](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/developer/security/csp/)).

   New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.

   For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

   For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove

Add item to Submitter checklist

Desired reviewers

@jenkinsci/sig-ux

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Edit tasklist title

Beta Give feedback Tasklist Maintainer checklist, more options

• Rename
• Copy markdown
• Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?

Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.

Cancel Delete

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.

   There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.

   Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or **Proposed changelog entries** are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.

   Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.

   Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the `upgrade-guide-needed` label is set and there is a **Proposed upgrade guidelines** section in the pull request title (see [example](https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4387)).

   If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a _Bug_ or _Improvement_, and be labeled as `lts-candidate` to be considered (see [query](https://issues.jenkins.io/issues/?filter=12146)).

   If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove

Add item to Maintainer checklist

[timja]

can you add before screenshots too please

[mawinter69]

How does this look when a build has a display name?
How does it look when a build has many badges?
Just an example how this looks currently:

[janfaracik]

How does this look when a build has a display name? How does it look when a build has many badges? Just an example how this looks currently:

It's okay but could be better - I think moving the badges onto a new row when its incredibly long would improve it.

[mawinter69]

What made the previous implementation so big was the logic to find a suitable way to arrange all the things. See #9122 for my PR that changed they calculation to be more efficient.

[github-actions]

Please take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request. Thanks!

[janfaracik]

Getting ReferenceError: "fetch" is not defined. (http://localhost:42617/jenkins/static/8bd93229/jsbundles/pages/project/builds-card.js#52) in tests - have you experienced this before @timja?

[timja]

Getting ReferenceError: "fetch" is not defined. (http://localhost:42617/jenkins/static/8bd93229/jsbundles/pages/project/builds-card.js#52) in tests - have you experienced this before @timja?

I see the issue, PR incoming

[timja]

jenkinsci/jenkins-test-harness#753

[Kevin-CB]

No blockers from a security perspective.

However, I've noticed that the search filter doesn't seem to work properly.
It takes quite long or never finishes.

[github-actions]

Please take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request. Thanks!

[janfaracik]

StaticRoutingDecisionProviderTest#test_objectCustom_withStandardWhitelist is passing locally but not on CI - wondering if this is actually an issue of this PR?

[mawinter69]

The collapse arrow is no longer there.
tbh I have never used it so I'm not missing it but don't know what others are thinking about it.

[daniel-beck]

StaticRoutingDecisionProviderTest#test_objectCustom_withStandardWhitelist is passing locally but not on CI - wondering if this is actually an issue of this PR?

I can reproduce it locally by running the entire test class, not just the one test. This is a result of concurrent test execution within the same class. I was unaware we were doing this, is this new?

[timja]

StaticRoutingDecisionProviderTest#test_objectCustom_withStandardWhitelist is passing locally but not on CI - wondering if this is actually an issue of this PR?

I can reproduce it locally by running the entire test class, not just the one test. This is a result of concurrent test execution within the same class. I was unaware we were doing this, is this new?

I can't see it enabled =/

jenkins/test/pom.xml

Lines 359 to 369 in 065c2ba

	<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
	<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
	<!-- version specified in grandparent pom -->
	<configuration>
	<argLine>@{jacocoSurefireArgs} -Xmx1g @{jenkins.addOpens} @{jenkins.insaneHook}</argLine>
	<systemPropertyVariables>
	<hudson.maven.debug>${mavenDebug}</hudson.maven.debug>
	<buildDirectory>${project.build.directory}</buildDirectory>
	</systemPropertyVariables>
	<reuseForks>false</reuseForks>
	</configuration>

[daniel-beck]

OK then I'll dig further, my System.err based diagnostic probably wasn't good enough :)

[daniel-beck]

Running the entire class, I get this after modifying the test to not rely on @Before and changing the URL to be guaranteed not routable:

@timja Thoughts? Am I missing something obvious?

[timja]

I've not looked into it in detail but this chases it away =/:

diff --git a/test/src/test/java/jenkins/security/stapler/StaticRoutingDecisionProviderTest.java b/test/src/test/java/jenkins/security/stapler/StaticRoutingDecisionProviderTest.java
index 9e849a2278..b76124047d 100644
--- a/test/src/test/java/jenkins/security/stapler/StaticRoutingDecisionProviderTest.java
+++ b/test/src/test/java/jenkins/security/stapler/StaticRoutingDecisionProviderTest.java
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ public class StaticRoutingDecisionProviderTest extends StaplerAbstractTest {
     }

     @Test
-    public void test_job_index() throws Exception {
+    public void zzTest_job_index() throws Exception {
         j.createFreeStyleProject("testProject");
         assertReachableWithoutOk("contentProvider/job/");
         assertTrue(ContentProvider.called);

[timja]

Its being loaded by build history ajax somehow.

From a breakpoint on all the called variables:

[timja]

This also chases it away, I haven't run other sub-classes to see if any impact:

diff --git a/test/src/test/java/jenkins/security/stapler/StaplerAbstractTest.java b/test/src/test/java/jenkins/security/stapler/StaplerAbstractTest.java
index 4c3f5d28b6..d66902a724 100644
--- a/test/src/test/java/jenkins/security/stapler/StaplerAbstractTest.java
+++ b/test/src/test/java/jenkins/security/stapler/StaplerAbstractTest.java
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ import org.htmlunit.HttpMethod;
 import org.htmlunit.Page;
 import org.htmlunit.WebRequest;
 import org.junit.Before;
-import org.junit.ClassRule;
+import org.junit.Rule;
 import org.jvnet.hudson.test.JenkinsRule;
 import org.kohsuke.stapler.Stapler;
 import org.kohsuke.stapler.StaplerResponse;
@@ -51,8 +51,8 @@ import org.kohsuke.stapler.WebApp;
 import org.kohsuke.stapler.WebMethod;

 public abstract class StaplerAbstractTest {
-    @ClassRule
-    public static JenkinsRule rule = new JenkinsRule();
+    @Rule
+    public JenkinsRule rule = new JenkinsRule();
     protected JenkinsRule j;

     protected JenkinsRule.WebClient wc;

[daniel-beck]

Nice find. Web client reuse seems sus and unnecessary, I'm looking into cleaning that up, hoping this goes away with that.

Making JenkinsRule a @ClassRule probably speeds tests up considerably, would need to look into whether that decision was documented.

[timja]

Making JenkinsRule a @ClassRule probably speeds tests up considerably, would need to look into whether that decision was documented.

Yeah, 3 sec ClassRule, 11 sec Rule

[timja]

nice build passes now, cheers Daniel

[janfaracik]

Big thanks both 🎉