Closed bjosttveit closed 1 year ago
Sorry for not noticing this earlier, but I somehow feel this is very related to the issues about customizing the header.
Why did you go with a custom footer.json
file instead of making this just a footer
property of applicationsettings.json
or ul/../Settings.json
?
Another consequence of the current setup is that we need yet another http call to show an app (making loading even slower), and for all older apps it will fill our logs with 404 Not Found {org}/{app}/api/footer
, both in console and in application insights (where you might be able to configure an ignore rule.)
Those issues are indeed related, and are something we also want to allow customization of.
I suppose the reason we did not want to define it in applicationMetadata.json
is that it would not be very flexible in case we wanted to allow different footers depending on the process step in the future. It cannot really be put into Settings.json
since the footer needs to be available outside of the process, like instance selection. Yes, it would cause 404 in older apps as of now. 😕
We have discussed this again today, and we have decided to keep it in a separate file with the current setup for now. And then at a later point we can combine multiple files into a single request were appropriate to reduce the number of requests when loading the form.
OK: Looking forward to Application Insights being full of 404 errors looking for a footer.
OK: Looking forward to Application Insights being full of 404 errors looking for a footer.
@ivarne Same thing when looking for api/v1/featureset
in #899 soon. We'll discuss this on our end, to try to find a solution. IMO, 404 is barely an "error" (reminder that 4xx means "you did something wrong" while 5xx is "I did something wrong", and if lots of 4xx responses on an app trigger all the alarm bells it would be very easy for any malicious actor to make those alarm bells go off).
@olemartinorg Yes, but api/v1/featureset
is one endpoint that will reduce noise in the future. api/v1/footer
is yet another minor feature that shouldn't need to probe for the existence of an api.
Nice, I assumed I needed to update frontend-test with a footer and updated nugets to test with cypress. If it is possible to mock I can do it before merging 👍
SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.
Description
Removed the proposed grid-solution as I think it could be too complicated for a user friendly configuration in studio. Currently just a simple flexbox. Cypress tests depend on https://github.com/Altinn/app-lib-dotnet/pull/183 being released and frontend-test updating nugets.
Related Issue(s)
Verification
src/layout/layout.d.ts
andlayout.schema.v1.json
, and these are all backwards-compatible