Part of [Service provider auctions for web deployments](https://www.notion.so/Service-provider-auctions-for-web-deployments-104a6b22d47280dbad51d28aa3a91d75)
- Use deployer API to get status of the deployments
Co-authored-by: Shreerang Kale <shreerangkale@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: IshaVenikar <ishavenikar7@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Adw8 <adwaitgharpure@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: #15
Co-authored-by: Nabarun Gogoi <nabarun@deepstacksoft.com>
Co-committed-by: Nabarun Gogoi <nabarun@deepstacksoft.com>
Part of [Service provider auctions for web deployments](https://www.notion.so/Service-provider-auctions-for-web-deployments-104a6b22d47280dbad51d28aa3a91d75)
- Fix request Id being set to `null` while fetching build logs
- Populate deployer LRNs dropdown with LRNs fetched from registry in configure delpoyment step
Co-authored-by: IshaVenikar <ishavenikar7@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Neeraj <neeraj.rtly@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: #11
Part of [Service provider auctions for web deployments](https://www.notion.so/Service-provider-auctions-for-web-deployments-104a6b22d47280dbad51d28aa3a91d75)
- Add support for configuring web-app deployers by -
- Configuring deployer LRN (for targeted deployments)
- Configuring SP auction params for deployment auction (max price and number of providers)
Co-authored-by: IshaVenikar <ishavenikar7@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: #2
### TL;DR
Added new keys for Google and Turnkey integration in `local.toml.example`
### What changed?
- Updated server session secret to empty string
- Added placeholders for google clientId and clientSecret
- Added placeholders for Turnkey API integration (apiBaseUrl, apiPrivateKey, apiPublicKey, defaultOrganizationId)
### How to test?
1. Pull the latest changes
2. Update `local.toml.example` file with actual values.
3. Run the application locally and ensure all services are working correctly.
### Why make this change?
To integrate new services (Google and Turnkey) into the project setup.
---
### TL;DR
- Still cretaes app if user migrates from page
The PR introduces a new `AddProjectFromTemplate` mutation to facilitate project creation using a repository template. This change centralizes the template project creation logic within the backend, improving code maintainability by removing redundant client-side code.
### What changed?
- Added `AddProjectFromTemplate` input type in `schema.gql` and corresponding TypeScript interfaces.
- Implemented `addProjectFromTemplate` resolver with error handling and Octokit integration for repository creation.
- Updated `service.ts` to include the new `addProjectFromTemplate` method.
- Created new GraphQL `Mutation` for `addProjectFromTemplate` in the GraphQL schema.
- Adjusted the client-side GQLClient to support the new mutation.
- Modified frontend to utilize the new backend mutation for project creation from a template.
### How to test?
1. Ensure your backend server is running.
2. Use a GraphQL client like Postman to call the `addProjectFromTemplate` mutation with appropriate input.
3. Verify that the new project is created using the specified template, and appropriate error messages are returned for failures.
4. Check the frontend flow for creating a project from a template to ensure it is working correctly.
### Why make this change?
This change enhances code maintainability by centralizing template project creation logic within the backend, thereby reducing redundancy and potential inconsistencies in client-side implementations.
---
This pull request refactors the main `README.md` by removing detailed backend and frontend setup instructions and adding separate `README.md` files for the backend and frontend with their specific setup and deployment instructions. This makes the main `README.md` cleaner and directs users to specific READMEs for backend and frontend setups.
---
### TL;DR
Implemented the new `VerifyCodeInput` component and updated the access code validation logic.
### What changed?
1. Added a new reusable `VerifyCodeInput` component for verifying codes in a user-friendly way. This component handles paste events, input changes, and keyboard navigation.
2. Updated the backend route `/accesscode` to accept an arbitrary code for now.
3. Incorporated the `VerifyCodeInput` component into the `AccessCode` page, replacing the generic `Input` component.
4. Updated the access code validation logic to check for a trimmed length of 5 characters instead of 6.
5. Added a slight pause for UX purposes when validating the access code on the frontend.
### How to test?
1. Go to the Access Code page.
2. Try entering an access code with various inputs (keyboard, paste, etc.) to see if it works seamlessly.
3. Verify that only a 5-digit code is considered valid.
4. Check the backend logs to ensure the validation endpoint is working as expected.
### Why make this change?
This change improves the user experience by providing a custom input component for access code verification and ensures that the access code validation meets the new requirements.
---
## What changed?
This Pull Request introduces an access code validation feature to the authentication process. Changes encompass backend route for access code validation, new frontend components for handling access code input, and integration of the access code verification in the signup flow.
### Backend:
- Added POST `/accesscode` route in `auth.ts` for validating access codes.
### Frontend:
- Created `AccessCode` component for access code input and validation.
- Added `AccessSignUp` component that integrates access code verification before signup.
- Updated `SignUp` component to check for valid access code on mount.
- Modified `SnowballAuth` to use new `AccessSignUp` instead of `SignUp`.
- Added `verifyAccessCode` utility function for code verification API call.
## How to test?
1. Run the backend and frontend projects.
2. Navigate to the signup page. You should be prompted to enter an access code.
3. Enter the code `444444` and proceed. Any other code should display an error message.
4. Verify that valid access code routes to the signup component.
## Why make this change?
This change improves authentication by adding an extra layer of security through access code verification.
