Webhook subscriptions shouldnt block dev

[isaacroldan]

WHY are these changes introduced?

Fixes an issue where webhook subscriptions were incorrectly blocking the dev command due to missing UIDs.

WHAT is this pull request doing?

Modifies the blockIfMigrationIncomplete function to ignore webhook subscriptions when checking if extensions have assigned UIDs. Webhook subscriptions do need UIDs but shouldn't block the dev command from proceeding.

How to test your changes?

1. Create an app with webhook subscriptions
2. Run the dev command
3. Verify that the dev command doesn't block due to webhook subscriptions missing UIDs

Measuring impact

How do we know this change was effective? Please choose one:

• n/a - this doesn't need measurement, e.g. a linting rule or a bug-fix
• Existing analytics will cater for this addition
• PR includes analytics changes to measure impact

Checklist

• I've considered possible cross-platform impacts (Mac, Linux, Windows)
• I've considered possible documentationchanges

[isaacroldan]

• Webhook subscriptions shouldnt block dev #6282 👈 (View in Graphite)
• Change how Webhook Subscription UID is generated #6281
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[github-actions]

We detected some changes at packages/*/src and there are no updates in the .changeset.
If the changes are user-facing, run pnpm changeset add to track your changes and include them in the next release CHANGELOG.

Caution

DO NOT create changesets for features which you do not wish to be included in the public changelog of the next CLI release.

[github-actions]

Coverage report

St.❔	Category	Percentage	Covered / Total
🟡	Statements	78.42% (+0% 🔼)	13319/16985
🟡	Branches	72.43%	6510/8988
🟡	Functions	78.58% (+0% 🔼)	3464/4408
🟡	Lines	78.78% (+0% 🔼)	12598/15992

Test suite run success

3160 tests passing in 1330 suites.

Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 42ad5af

[MitchDickinson]

Just want to confirm we can remove this code later right? (since this is a new "Consistency violation" we should have a plan for end-of-life)

[isaacroldan]

this whole function will be removed as part of the migration cleaning, it was only added to show a temporary banner

[pt2pham]

+1 to Mitch that we need to note this down as tech debt to remove

[github-actions]

Differences in type declarations

We detected differences in the type declarations generated by Typescript for this branch compared to the baseline ('main' branch). Please, review them to ensure they are backward-compatible. Here are some important things to keep in mind:

• Some seemingly private modules might be re-exported through public modules.
• If the branch is behind main you might see odd diffs, rebase main into this branch.

New type declarations

We found no new type declarations in this PR

Existing type declarations

packages/cli-kit/dist/public/node/monorail.d.ts

@@ -112,10 +112,6 @@ export interface Schemas {
             app_web_framework?: Optional<string>;
             app_web_frontend_any?: Optional<boolean>;
             app_web_frontend_count?: Optional<number>;
-            cmd_theme_timings?: Optional<string>;
-            cmd_theme_errors?: Optional<string>;
-            cmd_theme_retries?: Optional<string>;
-            cmd_theme_events?: Optional<string>;
             env_ci?: Optional<boolean>;
             env_ci_platform?: Optional<string>;
             env_device_id?: Optional<string>;