Skip to content

Conversation

@kacieje
Copy link

@kacieje kacieje commented Dec 13, 2025

Description

Migration progress has been updated to reflect the current state of the 9.x branch. Files that have been flagged as not used/required within 10.0.x have been separated to make clear that removal has not yet occurred. i.e. the files are still present in both 9.x and 10.0.x as at the time of this PR.

Type of change

  • Documentation (update)

How Has This Been Tested?

The updated content has been tested against the thoth-tech/doubtfire-web: 9.x, thoth-tech/doubtfire-web: 10.0.x, doubtfire-lms/doubtfire-web: 9.x and doubtfire-lms/doubtfire-web: 10.0.x branches. The migration_progress script output was also compared however the output results cannot be simply copied across as it does not account for those files completed within 10.0.x.
The actual changes of this PR have been tested through the file previews to ensure the display aligns with existing formatting structures.

Testing Checklist:

  • Tested in latest Chrome
  • Tested in latest Edge
  • Tested in latest Safari
  • Tested in latest Firefox
  • npm run build
  • npm run preview

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings

Files Modified

  • Modified:
    • README.md


Important: When completing a frontend migration, please update the below list regarding the component you have migrated.

### SUMMARY:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The SUMMARY has two “components migrated” counts. Could we label each count with the branch/context (e.g., “9.x:” vs “10.0.x:”) so readers don’t have to infer what 89/183 vs 125/185 refers to?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @rubalpreet-singh-123, I'm unable to replicate the two counts you mentioned. Could you have been reviewing the file in 'diff' mode, displaying the previous code and current in the same view? This is what displays for me rendered.
image

and view as diff:
image

Copy link

@rubalpreet-singh-123 rubalpreet-singh-123 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed the README migration progress update. Left a suggestion to clarify the summary counts so readers can better understand the context.

README.md Outdated
- [x] ./src/app/common/alert-list/alert-list.coffee
- [x] ./src/app/common/modals/progress-modal/progress-modal.coffee
- [x] ./src/app/errors/states/not-found/not-found.coffee
- [x] ./src/app/groups/tutor-group-manager/tutor-group-manager.coffee

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This component seems to be duplicated in same section. Could you take a look at this and remove one of them for consistency?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mannat2634 Great catch thanks! I've removed the duplicate.

README.md Outdated
- [ ] ./src/app/visualisations/alignment-bullet-chart.coffee (ILO Alignments removed)
- [x] ./src/app/groups/group-member-contribution-assigner/group-member-contribution-assigner.coffee
- [x] ./src/app/groups/groups.coffee
- [x] ./src/app/projects/states/dashboard/directives/progress-dashboard/progress-dashboard.coffee (9.x)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For better consistency, should we standardize the use of branch/version tags for components that have been fully migrated? Like we have some clear tags (Removed in 10.0.x) but some ambigious (9.x). Like, what does the version name mean? We see (IN 10.0.x) and (9.x) used, but no clarification on what the absence of a tag implies (e.g., is it a new, non-migrated file, or a fully refactored one?).

Since this list is primarily about migration status, a clearer, consistent rule for these inline notes would be helpful for future updates.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mannat2634 Thanks that makes sense, I've removed the 9.x reference as suggested to avoid the ambiguity.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mannat2634 Thanks that makes sense, I've removed the 9.x reference as suggested to avoid the ambiguity.

Thanks for quick fixes. Changes seem fine to me. I don't find any further comments/improvements on this.
Thank you!

@mannat2634
Copy link

Hi, I reviewed the changes and update seems to be clear and accurate for the most part. I had some suggestions which have been added as comments, mainly to improve the clarity of tag meanings.
Thank you for your contribution.

@BrianDangDev
Copy link

approved for upstream, @kacieje you can now open a PR to upsteam repo

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants