Adds LUX header and footer

[axamei]

No description provided.

[tpendragon]

We'll need to install yarn on dpul-staging1 to deploy this.

[tpendragon]

Tried to use yarn for deploy and got an error: error lux-design-system@0.0.14: The engine "node" is incompatible with this module. Expected version ">= 9.11.1"..

NPM works, so sticking with that. Maybe something you can look at @axamei if we want to stick with YARN?

Update: Looking into this now, I think it's just a yarn installation problem.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.3%) to 99.693% when pulling f88295b on with_lux into 9242a7c on master.

[tpendragon]

Dropdown user menu is being hidden:

[tpendragon]

Show views are broken:

(This might not be this PR's fault - testing master now)

Confirmed the view is fine in master.

[tpendragon]

pulibrary/princeton_ansible#300 is necessary to deploy this.

[escowles]

I deployed this to staging and tested it compared to the master branch. I saw some of the same display issues that @tpendragon mentioned above:

• While the page was loading, the header is missing
• On the item show page, the bookmark/email/sms links are unstyled
• If the item show page is loaded using turbolinks, the viewer doesn't display. If I reload the page or enter the URL in my browser, the viewer works fine.

I did some basic timings and saved the pages with dependencies using Chrome, and found the Lux versions were a little slower and larger. But turbolinks is a significant factor there, so we should probably talk about the best methodology for testing page sizes and load times.

[sdellis]

@escowles this was branched from master before the header/footer rollback. Those issues may be related to problems with that branch. We are going to redo this from master. @axamei is out today. Can we keep this open until she returns?

Re: the benchmarking... Lux is going to add some additional weight while we transition since we are only adding, not yet taking anything away. I agree that we should discuss the best methodology for testing. I think Lighthouse audits are a pretty good way to do this.

[escowles]

@sdellis It's totally fine to leave this open a while (as long as you think it's worth having around in fact). Basing off the updated master branch makes sense, and hopefully resolves some of the styling issues.

I'll take a look at Lighthouse. I don't think modest page size or load time increases would be a problem (in fact, that's what I expect because we're adding Lux and not removing anything else yet). I was mostly just curious about what the impact was.

[axamei]

Going to start a new branch from the current master. This is too messy.

[axamei]

Feel free to close in favor of #418

[tpendragon]

Closed in favor of #418