search

FlowFuse / flowfuse

Build bespoke, flexible, and resilient manufacturing low-code applications with FlowFuse and Node-RED
https://flowfuse.com
Other
243 stars 59 forks source link

Add a new instance creation landing page #3994

Closed cstns closed 5 days ago

cstns commented 3 weeks ago

Description

Add a new landing page where users can create instances with predefined blueprints. Adds the ability for existing users to create an instance with a pre-defined blueprint when following an external URL.

Related Issue(s)

closes #3973

Checklist

Labels

codecov[bot] commented 3 weeks ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 78.72%. Comparing base (9454799) to head (dce266e).

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #3994 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 78.72% 78.72% ======================================= Files 284 284 Lines 13009 13009 Branches 2897 2897 ======================================= Hits 10241 10241 Misses 2768 2768 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/FlowFuse/flowfuse/pull/3994/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=FlowFuse) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [backend](https://app.codecov.io/gh/FlowFuse/flowfuse/pull/3994/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=FlowFuse) | `78.72% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=FlowFuse#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

cstns commented 2 weeks ago

something weird is happening. Some e2e tests are failing in cypress cli but not in the browser session

joepavitt commented 2 weeks ago

something weird is happening. Some e2e tests are failing in cypress cli but not in the browser session

Often an ordering problem, i.e. the cli runs all tests, so some leftovers from previous tests influence future tests. In the browser, you just run the tests you're interested in.

cstns commented 2 weeks ago

yes, that is the case. I narrowed it down to the fact that we're somehow ending up with two default blueprints in the test DB.

cstns commented 2 weeks ago

I was close. We don't end up with two default blueprints, but in a suite of blueprint tests that's running prior to the landing page ones, we're changing the default blueprint. This is a side effect of the fact that we're not refreshing the DB between test specs.

I'll need to intercept the response on the failing ones

Steve-Mcl commented 2 weeks ago

@cstns I have read the linked issue but it not clear to me what this PR is doing. There are no screenshots or details about the included works.

To help me sign off on this, could you point me to screenshots and/or stepwise "how to" or something that explains what this is all about?

My apologies if I am missing something obvious.

cstns commented 2 weeks ago

My apologies if I am missing something obvious.

No need, you did not miss anything, I didn't create a feature demo just yet!

I'll try to address it today

Steve-Mcl commented 1 week ago
  • [ ] Suitable unit/system level tests have been added and they pass
  • [ ] Documentation has been updated

@cstns this Pr does have tests but the check box in the OP is not checked. Are there more tests to come?

Also, are there any docs and/or screenshots that need updating in the docs to accompany this?

Side note: I have clicked update branch on GH UI to ensure this is most up to date before review.

cstns commented 1 week ago

I missed checking the tests checkbox.

Also, are there any docs and/or screenshots that need updating in the docs to accompany this?

I couldn't find anything related that would need updating. On the other hand, we could add a new entry that would describe this feature but haven't spoke to anyone about this until now