QA » openQA Project

thank you this makes sense. I will not consider for the current backlog though. Good to have this ticket as reference and whenever we stumble upon any further issue with assetpack we can come back here.

Added suggestions to make it "Workable". Also the submission to Factory is easy. Done that now with:

osc sr -m "Initial submission, potential further dependency for openQA" devel:languages:perl perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-Webpack openSUSE:Factory

-> https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/835321

I will track the SR

https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/835321 accepted, https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Factory/perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-Webpack is in Factory, AC1 and first task fulfilled.

I'll give it a try considering Mojolicious::Plugin::AssetPack does not support the current version of Mojolicious.

Likely we're better off patching Mojolicious::Plugin::AssetPack for the moment because this task seems to be more involved than just changing a few lines of Perl code:

• Mojolicious::Plugin::AssetPack and Mojolicious::Plugin::Webpack use completely different underlying technologies.
  • Webpack seems to focus on using either ES Modules, CommonJS or AMD but we use neither of those so far.
  • Webpack is a nodejs application so a lot of nodejs modules need to be downloaded (~ 120 MiB). I suppose that's only required at build-time but still something we need to consider (e.g. adjust the documentation and environments where generate-packed-assets runs).
• The automatic conversion from assetpack.def provided by Mojolicious::Plugin::Webpack did not work in our case. The resulting configuration leads to many errors and is generally not working out-of-the-box.
• So far we're generating assets to be bundled when building the RPM package and within the CI via openQA/tools/generate-packed-assets which also needs to be adjusted to work with Mojolicious::Plugin::Webpack.
  • This includes updating https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/devel:openQA/openQA/update-cache.sh
• The dependencies need to be updated but that's more than usual because there are AssetPack-specific cases.

ok, good that you tried and evaluated already. However I still think now is a good time because after finding a short-term fix we need to be prepared and should not be "surprised" again the next time when we would not have the capability to invest into a proper solution at that time.

there's a new Mojolicious::Plugin::AssetPack on CPAN, with Marius Kittler's test fix PR applied. https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/873696 was created and already accepted. Pending submission to openSUSE:Factory with https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/873701 . Will track that

The mentioned SR is accepted, https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/3744 is merged. So I assume we should now look into the next parts of a migration following up to #71476#note-6, right?

Mojolicious::Plugin::AssetPack is now maintained in the mojolicious org on GitHub, so if necessary i can fix any issues we run into. :) https://github.com/mojolicious/mojolicious-plugin-assetpack

My original reasoning for requesting the change is moot now. So we should re-evaluate if we still want to use webpack instead of assetpack. The main reason to do so would be better JavaScript compilation features. For React, Svelte... and the like. But we don't need that at the moment. So, if nobody has a good reason i'd just close this ticket.