Currently, when a server query or mutation from the front-end fails, the
error message defined server-side is displayed in a snackbar in the
front-end.
These error messages usually contain technical details that don't belong
to the user interface, such as "ObjectMetadataCollection not found" or
"invalid ENUM value for ...".
**BE**
In addition to the original error message that is still needed (for the
request response, debugging, sentry monitoring etc.), we add a
`displayedErrorMessage` that will be used in the snackbars. It's only
relevant to add it for the messages that will reach the FE (ie. not in
jobs or in rest api for instance) and if it can help the user sort out /
fix things (ie. we do add displayedErrorMessage for "Cannot create
multiple draft versions for the same workflow" or "Cannot delete
[field], please update the label identifier field first", but not
"Object metadata does not exist"), even if in practice in the FE users
should not be able to perform an action that will not work (ie should
not be able to save creation of multiple draft versions of the same
workflows).
**FE**
To ease the usage we replaced enqueueSnackBar with enqueueErrorSnackBar
and enqueueSuccessSnackBar with an api that only requires to pass on the
error.
If no displayedErrorMessage is specified then the default error message
is `An error occured.`
Closes#12303
### What’s Changed
- Replace auto‐save with explicit Save / Cancel
Webhook forms now use manual “Save” and “Cancel” buttons instead of the
old debounced auto‐save/update.
- Separate “New” and “Detail” routes
Two dedicated paths `/settings/webhooks/new` for creation and
/`settings/webhooks/:webhookId` for editing, making the UX clearer.
- URL hint & normalization
If a user omits the http(s):// scheme, we display a “Will be saved as
https://…” hint and automatically default to HTTPS.
- Centralized validation with Zod
Introduced a `webhookFormSchema` for client‐side URL, operations, and
secret validation.
- Storybook coverage
Added stories for both “New Webhook” and “Webhook Detail”
- Unit tests
Added tests for the new `useWebhookForm` hook
# Introduction
In this PR we've migrated `twenty-shared` from a `vite` app
[libary-mode](https://vite.dev/guide/build#library-mode) to a
[preconstruct](https://preconstruct.tools/) "atomic" application ( in
the future would like to introduce preconstruct to handle of all our
atomic dependencies such as `twenty-emails` `twenty-ui` etc it will be
integrated at the monorepo's root directly, would be to invasive in the
first, starting incremental via `twenty-shared`)
For more information regarding the motivations please refer to nor:
- https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/587
-
https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/281#issuecomment-2630949682
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/589
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/590
## How to test
In order to ease the review this PR will ship all the codegen at the
very end, the actual meaning full diff is `+2,411 −114`
In order to migrate existing dependent packages to `twenty-shared` multi
barrel new arch you need to run in local:
```sh
yarn tsx packages/twenty-shared/scripts/migrateFromSingleToMultiBarrelImport.ts && \
npx nx run-many -t lint --fix -p twenty-front twenty-ui twenty-server twenty-emails twenty-shared twenty-zapier
```
Note that `migrateFromSingleToMultiBarrelImport` is idempotent, it's atm
included in the PR but should not be merged. ( such as codegen will be
added before merging this script will be removed )
## Misc
- related opened issue preconstruct
https://github.com/preconstruct/preconstruct/issues/617
## Closed related PR
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/11028
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10993
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10960
## Upcoming enhancement: ( in others dedicated PRs )
- 1/ refactor generate barrel to export atomic module instead of `*`
- 2/ generate barrel own package with several files and tests
- 3/ Migration twenty-ui the same way
- 4/ Use `preconstruct` at monorepo global level
## Conclusion
As always any suggestions are welcomed !
## Context
Some users were able to set an empty URL as webhook targetUrl, which was
breaking the Webhook List and Detail pages
## Fix
- Making sure to protect getHostNameOrThrow by isValidUrl
- rework webhook form to prevent creation of invalid webhooks
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/10822
Migrate and unify URL tooling in twenty-shared.
We now have:
- isValidHostname which follows our own business rules
- a zod schema that can be re-used in different context and leverages is
isValidHostname
- isValidUrl on top of the zod schema
- a getAbsoluteURl and getHostname on top of the zod schema
I have added a LOT of tests to cover all the cases I've found
Also fixes: https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/10147
nitin