Refine the 'System Log' Manage Jenkins page

[janfaracik]

What's new?

• Renamed to Logs
• Now uses a dialog for adding recorders
• Pages now use experimental Manage Jenkins wrapper
• Introduced a wide variant of the pages, used for logs + plugin management
• Moved SCSS to its own file

Testing done

• Recorder creation works as before
• Log screens show as expected

Screenshots (UI changes only)

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Proposed changelog entries

• Refine the 'System Log' Manage Jenkins page

Proposed changelog category

/label web-ui,rfe

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

• The issue, if it exists, is well-described.
• The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
• There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
• New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
• New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
• UI changes do not introduce regressions when enforcing the current default rules of Content Security Policy Plugin. In particular, new or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
• For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
• For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

• There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
• Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
• Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
• Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
• If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
• If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, be a Bug or Improvement, and either the issue or pull request must be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered.

[github-actions]

Please take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request. Thanks!

[timja]

@janfaracik can you check this please? #26646

When I tested this just clicking on a log level submits the form:

[janfaracik]

ATH failure but I don't think it's related: https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Core/job/acceptance-test-harness/job/PR-2685/4/testReport/plugins/GitLabPluginTest/latest_linux_jdk25_firefox_split4___testGitLabMultibranchPipeline/

[timja]

Yeah its jenkinsci/acceptance-test-harness#2682 + something else not figured out yed

[timja]

LGTM,

• Breadcrumbs look good
• Able to create and delete new log recorders
• Keyboard navigation works - although after adding a new logger focus is on the button and you have to shift tab to new ones, works though

Areas for future improvement:

• Could add loggers in dialog where you add the name
• Getting rid of that empty logger warning message, maybe we could require a specific root logger name or a button for root logger
• Dead space where repeatable title is supposed to be but the logger card doesn't have a title