Add "Enable Prebuilds" to Project Settings – EXP-573 #18698
Conversation
|
Can't test yet, it seems, to waiting with the ✔️ 🙃 |
AlexTugarev
changed the title
| <Heading2 className="mt-12">Prebuilds</Heading2> | ||
| <CheckboxInputField | ||
| label="Enable prebuilds" | ||
| hint="You need to have admin permissions on the repository in order to install a webhook for prebuilds." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thought(blocking): I assume that clicking enable will install the webhook? If so, that's not super obvious to me as a user. Mentioning the "webhook" at all here feels confusing, could we leave it up to the error? e.g. the user clicks to enable, if incorrect permissions show an error with an action? There feels like too much information that we'd need to contain here, e.g. we'd also need to mention that this overrides the init and before steps of your .gitpod.yml. @gtsiolis -> Any chance we could do a quick mockup and iterate on the copy text for @AlexTugarev? Happy to do a quick sync tomorrow morning if needed to get this unblocked.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume that clicking enable will install the webhook?
yes
If so, that's not super obvious to me as a user.
that's not a change to current state at all. in fact, you would actually get feedback if it fails. today, if it fails, you wouldn't even notice as everything happens behind the scene and there is no feedback.
Mentioning the "webhook" at all here feels confusing, could we leave it up to the error? e.g. the user clicks to enable, if incorrect permissions show an error with an action?
yes. I like that! let's simplify the hint, not mentioning the webhook and improve the error message.
CTA? which one? I think the most we can do is point out to check write permissions in Gitpod and admin permissions on the project at the SCM provider.
👍🏻 for the sync, but I don't see a blocker her TBH. this is where we need input, thus please fill in the gaps 🙏🏻
|
Looking at UX changes now! 👀 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Leaving a first round of comments. 🥊
Also scheduled a sync with @AlexTugarev taking place in the next hour to discuss more about this. 💬
Also, thanks for the ping[1], @loujaybee.
| enablePrebuilds?: boolean; | ||
| useIncrementalPrebuilds?: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The backwards compatibility logic that undefined actually means enabled is very surprising. What are you concerns with usin the inverse logic internally? I.e. prebuildsDisabled?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The backwards compatibility logic that undefined actually means enabled is very surprising.
Agree on that. I'd like to follow-up with a data migration separate from this PR and backfill all empty settings using a migration, then remove the compatibility lines. Would you be fine with that?
Using the inverse logic internally just for the sake of not dealing with the data migration sounds as odd as the compatibility mode.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you do a data migration, then I'd love to discuss if a shape for prebuilds as suggested by @geropl would make sense. Also would be good to name the property enabled instead of enable as the later sounds like an action and not like a state.
|
Found that |
|
@mustard-mh, thanks for raising this!
What's more surprising, there is no |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left two more comments with copy suggestions, to match the latest designs shared in a relevant discussion (internal). 🥊
Feel free to ignore if you think they cause more confusion. 🏓
Co-authored-by: George Tsiolis <[email protected]>
|
Taking a look now 👀 |
|
mini-nit: Would be great if we could show the "Learn More" link also if the option is disabled, as that enables users in case they don't yet know about Prebuilds. nit 2: Would be great to see some indication whether Prebuilds are enabled on this page (maybe all empty plus a central CTA "Enable Prebuilds" as we do in other places): nit 3: When "Prebuilds" are disabled in the settings, I can still trigger a Prebuild manually (and I think that is good ™️ ). Still might be a question for another day/meeting/Slack thread: Have we already discussed/thought about naming it "Automatic Prebuilds"? |
|
I moved the "Learn more" link, so that it's also present if prebuilds aren't enabled. Next: testing once more with other SCM providers before landing this. |
Fixed bug with BBS prebuilds via 418a1fa |
Fixed GitLab prebuilds in 453bfb3 |
Checked with bitbucket.org 👍🏻 |
|
/unhold |
Description
This should add an explicit "Enable Prebuilds" checkbox to project settings.
Pre-existing projects are treated as if prebuilds were enabled, i.e. if new settings aren't present prebuilds are enabled and you'd need to disable them manually. Prebuilds are disabled when new projects are created.
Visualizing the prebuild enablement state in the list of all projects
New CTA on Project Created page guiding users to the project settings
Known issues
Summary generated by Copilot
🤖 Generated by Copilot at 4f80bee
No summary available (Limit exceeded: required to process 129049 tokens, but only 50000 are allowed per call)
Related Issue(s)
Fixes EXP-573
How to test
Unfortunately, this requires a full manual test of prebuild setups with all supported SCMs.
Documentation
Preview status
Gitpod was successfully deployed to your preview environment.
Build Options
Build
Run the build with werft instead of GHA
Run Leeway with
--dont-testPublish
Installer
Add desired feature flags to the end of the line above, space separated
Preview Environment / Integration Tests
If enabled this will build
install/previewIf enabled this will create the environment on GCE infra
Valid options are
all,workspace,webapp,ide,jetbrains,vscode,ssh. If enabled,with-previewandwith-large-vmwill be enabled./hold