Formik upgrade

[jtomasek]

Upgrade Formik to version 2.0.3

Required by #3516

[jtomasek]

/retest

[christianvogt]

cc @rohitkrai03

[andrewballantyne]

Upgrade looks good. Please to see the refactor PR make it in that depends on this PR.

/lgtm

[rohitkrai03]

@jtomasek Any specific reason for upgrading Formik? I had kept the formik version to rc1 because of an issue with low priority validations being done on stale values which would result in error message of that input field to appear late.

Few related issues on formik repository -

• [v2] Form-level validation runs on old values jaredpalmer/formik#1977
• [v2] Validation runs on old values after setFieldTouched jaredpalmer/formik#2083
• Low priority validation causing problems jaredpalmer/formik#1560

Weirdly enough the issue has not been fixed even after 13 rcs and a few more releases of formik after that. Just tested the PR for it and you can see the effects of this bug in below screenshot. When the scaling input goes to -1 it should show error but it doesn't and shows error the next time when value is canged to -2.

We would need to spend some time finding a solution that works for us for this specific issue after the upgrade.

cc: @christianvogt @andrewballantyne

[andrewballantyne]

It looks like there is some workarounds in those issues (such as invoking the validation ourselves - formik.validateForm). We could look to implement one of those while the Formik works on an official solution? @rohitkrai03

[jtomasek]

My goal was simply to move from RCs and upgrade Formik to the new 'stable' 2.0.3 version and add new multi checkbox functionality. All this before moving the components tho shared package.

[andrewballantyne]

My goal was simply to move from RCs and upgrade Formik to the new 'stable' 2.0.3 version and add new multi checkbox functionality. All this before moving the components tho shared package.

@jtomasek Not that I am currently asking you to do so... but I am wondering, could you do the migration to shared without upgrading (you'd have to undo the checkbox/switch changes is the only thing that comes to mind). Or is making that change now going to just slam you with conflicts?

[jtomasek]

My goal was simply to move from RCs and upgrade Formik to the new 'stable' 2.0.3 version and add new multi checkbox functionality. All this before moving the components tho shared package.

@jtomasek Not that I am currently asking you to do so... but I am wondering, could you do the migration to shared without upgrading (you'd have to undo the checkbox/switch changes is the only thing that comes to mind). Or is making that change now going to just slam you with conflicts?

No major conflicts it seems. I can rebase that PR so it does not depend on this upgrade.

[andrewballantyne]

No major conflicts it seems. I can rebase that PR so it does not depend on this upgrade.

I leave it up to you - I think the move to shared can be done independent of this upgrade. Might streamline the change if you broke it up.

[jtomasek]

Done (#3516).

[rohitkrai03]

It looks like there is some workarounds in those issues (such as invoking the validation ourselves - formik.validateForm). We could look to implement one of those while the Formik works on an official solution? @rohitkrai03

@andrewballantyne I did try using formik.validateForm back when I encountered the issue first but it seems the validateForm function is passed the stale formik values as well. That is why I reverted back to using rc-1 release. I haven't tested this again with latest release yet, will have to investigate a bit further to know if that was fixed at least.

[andrewballantyne]

Since this is separated now, perhaps we address this issue before upgrading.

/lgtm cancel

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jtomasek
To complete the pull request process, please assign bparees
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @bparees in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• frontend/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[christianvogt]

@jtomasek is this still needed? Is it worth salvaging anything here in the current PR or closing and creating a new PR?

[openshift-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jtomasek: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
ci/prow/kubevirt-plugin	e386694	link	/test kubevirt-plugin

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[andrewballantyne]

/close

Looks like this is not going to go in, closing PR.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@andrewballantyne: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

/close

Looks like this is not going to go in, closing PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.