Wizard: reintroduce registration step for cockpit (HMS-9195)

[kingsleyzissou]

We can re-enable the registration step for cockpit by allowing users to pass in an activation and org id pair so that they can build an image that is automatically registered.

JIRA: HMS-9030

[kingsleyzissou]

Still have to add some playwright tests

[kingsleyzissou]

/jira-epic HMS-8987

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 33.76623% with 102 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.60%. Comparing base (a5aa15c) to head (c5de942).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ps/Registration/components/ManualActivationKey.tsx	10.34%	78 Missing ⚠️
...ents/CreateImageWizard/utilities/useValidation.tsx	38.46%	16 Missing ⚠️
...teImageWizard/steps/Review/ReviewStepTextLists.tsx	42.85%	4 Missing ⚠️
...gistration/components/ActivationKeyInformation.tsx	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...nts/CreateImageWizard/steps/Registration/index.tsx	94.44%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/constants.ts	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3519      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.90%   82.60%   -0.31%     
==========================================
  Files         204      205       +1     
  Lines       24833    24959     +126     
  Branches     2562     2573      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        20589    20617      +28     
- Misses       4223     4321      +98     
  Partials       21       21              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...Components/CreateImageWizard/CreateImageWizard.tsx	97.08% <100.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
...s/CreateImageWizard/steps/Review/Footer/Footer.tsx	98.00% <100.00%> (+1.09%)	⬆️
...nents/CreateImageWizard/utilities/requestMapper.ts	90.68% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
...nts/CreateImageWizard/steps/Registration/index.tsx	98.30% <94.44%> (-1.70%)	⬇️
src/constants.ts	99.59% <66.66%> (-0.41%)	⬇️
...gistration/components/ActivationKeyInformation.tsx	85.34% <50.00%> (-1.39%)	⬇️
...teImageWizard/steps/Review/ReviewStepTextLists.tsx	90.45% <42.85%> (-0.44%)	⬇️
...ents/CreateImageWizard/utilities/useValidation.tsx	87.19% <38.46%> (-2.05%)	⬇️
...ps/Registration/components/ManualActivationKey.tsx	10.34% <10.34%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a5aa15c...c5de942. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[regexowl]

Nice! Added some small nit picks :)

As for copy - looks good to me, we can also check with UX or with someone from docs to get their feedback.

[kingsleyzissou]

Nice! Added some small nit picks :)

As for copy - looks good to me, we can also check with UX or with someone from docs to get their feedback.

The activation key copy should be more or less fine I think since I got that from the official docs. I guess it's the org id that I was less sure about. Will ping someone to have a look once I fix the nitpicks

[regexowl]

Oh right, looking at the unit test failure - the "additional connection options" should be hidden by default. So the original useState logic was correct. 🤔 The options opening on their own is a reasonably small bug so maybe we could revisit it in a follow up. Something is probably messing up with the state setter.

[kingsleyzissou]

Oh right, looking at the unit test failure - the "additional connection options" should be hidden by default. So the original useState logic was correct. 🤔 The options opening on their own is a reasonably small bug so maybe we could revisit it in a follow up. Something is probably messing up with the state setter.

Ya I might try look at it now, graphite decided to throw a few more useful comments at me too

[kingsleyzissou]

Oh right, looking at the unit test failure - the "additional connection options" should be hidden by default. So the original useState logic was correct. 🤔 The options opening on their own is a reasonably small bug so maybe we could revisit it in a follow up. Something is probably messing up with the state setter.

Actually, maybe I can drop that commit and do it in a follow up like you suggested. It's kind of weird

[avitova]

Few nitpicks.

[avitova]

I assume that when one of these values is invalid, we should disable the button.

[kingsleyzissou]

Ah good shout, thanks will have a look at this today

[kingsleyzissou]

Graphite is loving this PR 🙄

[avitova]

@kingsleyzissou I feel like it got a bit smarter, it is spamming throughout my PRs lately a bit more as well.

[kingsleyzissou]

@kingsleyzissou I feel like it got a bit smarter, it is spamming throughout my PRs lately a bit more as well.

In fairness it made some good catches!

[avitova]

Yeah, it did. Okay, my last question is - because I assume we do not want to expose activation keys when the user clicks "Edit blueprint", is there a plan on what to do, so that user is able to both a) keep activation keys after editing a blueprint, but also b) check "Register later"?
But overall I am good here.

[kingsleyzissou]

Yeah, it did. Okay, my last question is - because I assume we do not want to expose activation keys when the user clicks "Edit blueprint", is there a plan on what to do, so that user is able to both a) keep activation keys after editing a blueprint, but also b) check "Register later"?
But overall I am good here.

Ya great questions. For point a) I'm not entirely sure how we want to handle this. Since this should theoretically only be visible to the user that creates the blueprint, we should be fine. But maybe we do want to hide this?

For b) there is a small back when going back and clicking register later. I will fix that in a follow up

[croissanne]

Honestly I think it's fine. Activation keys are not traditional secrets like passwords are.

[kingsleyzissou]

So I think this might not land for the ITM release, I have done a run through and we can add the subscription details.
But it looks like the final image doesn't get subscribed. Will need to do some digging

[kingsleyzissou]

I found the issue, we're creating the ComposeRequest with a blueprint rather than customizations field so the subscription options aren't propagated the whole way through. We need to change the behaviour and send a composer request with customizations set instead. This might be a big change and I think it's definitely better to wait until after the ITM release.