Release v4.4.11

[dacook]

1. Preparation on Thursday

• Merge pull requests in the Ready To Go column
• Include translations
  Command line instructions:

    
    git checkout master
    git pull upstream master
    tx pull --force
    git commit -a -m "Update all locales with the latest Transifex translations"
    git push upstream master
    
    

• Create a tag: git push upstream HEAD:refs/tags/vX.Y.Z
• Draft new release. Look at previous releases for inspiration.
  • Select new release tag
  • Generate release notes and arrange into categories as required.
• Notify #instance-managers of user-facing changes.

2. Testing

• Move this issue to Test Ready.
• Notify @testers in #testing.
• Test build: Deploy to Staging with release tag.
  • Please also check on the cart page that the "Update" button appears as expected, using French (which has longer label "mettre a jour")

3. Finish on Tuesday

• Publish and notify #global-community (this is automatically posted with a plugin)
• Deploy the new release to all managed instances.
  Command line instructions

  cd ofn-install
  git pull
  ansible-playbook --limit all-prod --extra-vars "git_version=vX.Y.Z" playbooks/deploy.yml
  

• Notify #instance-managers:

  @instance_managers The new release has been deployed.

• Nudge next release manager

The full process is described at https://github.com/openfoodfoundation/openfoodnetwork/wiki/Releasing.

[dacook]

I created a one-liner as discussed to check for any changes to API spec files:

git diff --name-only v4.4.10..v4.4.11 -- engines/dfc_provider/spec/ spec/requests/api/ spec/controllers/api/ spec/jobs/webhook_delivery_job_spec.rb spec/services/order_cycle_webhook_service_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/fixtures/files/patch_supplied_product.json
engines/dfc_provider/spec/fixtures/files/put_supplied_product.json
engines/dfc_provider/spec/lib/data_food_consortium/connector/connector_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/lib/data_food_consortium/connector/importer_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/requests/addresses_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/requests/catalog_items_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/requests/enterprise_groups_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/requests/enterprises_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/requests/persons_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/requests/supplied_products_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/address_builder_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/authorization_control_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/catalog_item_builder_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/dfc_io_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/dfc_loader_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/enterprise_builder_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/offer_builder_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/quantitative_value_builder_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/supplied_product_builder_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/services/variant_fetcher_spec.rb
engines/dfc_provider/spec/swagger_helper.rb
spec/requests/api/orders_spec.rb
spec/requests/api/v1/customers_spec.rb

This shows lots of changed files, so I briefly manually reviewed these. I found that some are non-functional changes, and the functional changes have already been labelled correctly.

So this adds an additional manual review step, but it's not an onerous one. Seems ok to do this each week.
This one-liner could also be helpful when manually reviewing:

git log --name-only v4.4.10..v4.4.11 -- engines/dfc_provider/spec/ spec/requests/api/ spec/controllers/api/ spec/jobs/webhook_delivery_job_spec.rb spec/services/order_cycle_webhook_service_spec.rb

But what we're really looking for is any changes that aren't already labelled as "API Changes". We can't do this purely with git history (GH PR labels aren't included), but perhaps it could be scripted with the GitHub CLI...

[filipefurtad0]

Alright!
Looks good to me:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LDe1BMwOIeJhcVnJVU59_yGYkndMI3_9zNO7vCumvFc/edit

Minor comment:
Our new report is to be improved I guess, and not removed - the tool tip indicates the opposite message:

But I guess this is totally fine, and if it's not, we'll probably get questions from users.

Good to ship! 🎉

[dacook]

Yes you're right, this is confusing and wrong. But it was the simplest way to set it up (I tried to remove it entirely from the list class, but the report itself depends on it). Hopefully nobody notices ;)

[dacook]

All deployed