-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 390
fix: Linode Rebuild dialog erroring when Reuse user data previously provide is checked
#11902
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: Linode Rebuild dialog erroring when Reuse user data previously provide is checked
#11902
Conversation
Release v1.138.0 - release → staging
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just wanted to add more context and make the code more readable. This code accomplishes the same thing as it did before.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the fix.
Cloud Manager UI test results🎉 540 passing tests on test run #1 ↗︎
|
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| ui.toast.assertMessage('Linode rebuild started.'); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
❤️
coliu-akamai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
✅ testing rebuild with various configurations of user data + checkbox
✅ confirm test passes - ty for added coverage!
thank you!
01207ca
into
linode:release-v1.138.0
Description 📝
The Bug 🐛
Reuse user data previously providedcheckbox checked, a client-side validation error would occurMetadataSchemawould break this flow.How to test 🧪
Reuse user data previously providedcheckbox checkedAuthor Checklists
As an Author, to speed up the review process, I considered 🤔
👀 Doing a self review
❔ Our contribution guidelines
🤏 Splitting feature into small PRs
➕ Adding a changeset
🧪 Providing/improving test coverage
🔐 Removing all sensitive information from the code and PR description
🚩 Using a feature flag to protect the release
👣 Providing comprehensive reproduction steps
📑 Providing or updating our documentation
🕛 Scheduling a pair reviewing session
📱 Providing mobile support
♿ Providing accessibility support
As an Author, before moving this PR from Draft to Open, I confirmed ✅