Feat/make rta url params optional #2431
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: ab3e7c0 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
|
@ytpo-lyne this PR should help us for https://github.com/SAP/open-ux-tools/tree/feat/create-variantsConfig because the url parameter for the rta editor endpoints are no longer needed with this PR. |
|
@tobiasqueck I think we do not need to insist on this logic working with the connect API used by the karma test runner as rta editor is not subject to karma tests. Would you agree? |
| @@ -336,7 +341,7 @@ describe('FlpSandbox', () => { | |||
|
|
|||
| test('rta with developerMode=true and plugin', async () => { | |||
| await server.get('/with/plugin.html').expect(200); | |||
| const response = await server.get('/with/plugin.html.inner.html').expect(200); | |||
| const response = await server.get('/with/plugin.html.inner.html').expect(302); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We control exactly what is called as inner.html therefore, we should be able to also add the url parameters if required, thus, I would not expect that there is a redirect necessary for the inner html.
Is the test case just wrong i.e. should we test here with parameters or is there an unnecessary redirect now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the issue is a test issue because the URL added to the html template contains the parameters. See here
|
This PR makes the usage of url params for the rta editor endpoints optional. In case they are missing a re-route will happen and the parameters will be added 🥳