Aman-Mittal commented on issue #377: URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract-backoffice-ui/issues/377#issuecomment-5308429258
#379 closes every remaining blocker that this repository can close on its own. - [x] **V1** — version is `0.0.0` → `1.0.0-rc.1`, with a check that a tag cannot disagree with `package.json` - [x] **D1** — `RELEASING.md` and `CHANGELOG.md` added - [x] **L1** — LGPL devDependency removed (#378) - [x] **E1** — container reaches Fineract; verified from a clean container, `/api/v1/offices` returns real JSON instead of the SPA shell - [x] **E2** — compose brings up its own Fineract instead of defaulting to a third-party demo host - [x] **E3** — image builds with `npm ci`, both bases pinned by digest - [x] **E4** — entrypoint writes `config.json` whole, so no key is dropped - [x] **E8** — a CI job builds the image, runs it against a real Fineract, and asserts the API is proxied Two things worth surfacing here rather than leaving in the PR. **A gate would have gone quiet.** The GA `headers` gate reads the nginx server block. Renaming that file to a template would have turned the gate `unknown` — and `unknown` did not block. It is repointed, and `ga-check.mjs` now fails on an undetermined blocking gate. A check that cannot read its input has not said yes. **A correction to the audit.** V1 claimed the version also reaches `remoteEntry.json`. It does not — those `0.0.0`s are native-federation's internal chunk placeholders. The SBOM claim holds and is verified (`pkg:npm/[email protected]` → `@1.0.0-rc.1`); the `remoteEntry.json` half was wrong and is withdrawn. ### What is left, and it is all yours | Decision | Note | |---|---| | **Artifact scope** — source only, or source plus a container? | The container now works either way, so this is no longer blocked on engineering | | **Target Fineract version** | Everything is validated against **head**. If the release is retrospective to 1.15, that compatibility is still unevidenced — the compatibility job proposed in the audit is not built yet, and it is the one remaining piece of work I would do before a vote if 1.15 is the answer | | **Final version number** | `1.0.0-rc.1` is a starting point, not a decision | | **Does the "not release-ready" notice come out?** | Still in `security.md`, untouched | | **Release manager** | Three binding +1s on `[email protected]` | Once #379 lands, the dev-list proposal can be about those five questions rather than about outstanding work. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
