Pass location.search parameter through history search.

[Terala-Priyanka]

Purpose

Please note that this fix addressess a P1 issue reported for Poppy-bugfix.
UIU-2971 - Pass location.search parameter through history search.

These changes address the fix for both https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2971 and https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2947

Approach

TODOS and Open Questions

Learning

Screencast

Pre-Merge Checklist

Before merging this PR, please go through the following list and take appropriate actions.

• I've added appropriate record to the CHANGELOG.md
• Does this PR meet or exceed the expected quality standards?
  • Code coverage on new code is 80% or greater
  • Duplications on new code is 3% or less
  • There are no major code smells or security issues
• Does this introduce breaking changes?
  • If any API-related changes - okapi interfaces and permissions are reviewed/changed correspondingly
  • There are no breaking changes in this PR.

If there are breaking changes, please STOP and consider the following:

• What other modules will these changes impact?
• Do JIRAs exist to update the impacted modules?
  • If not, please create them
  • Do they contain the appropriate level of detail? Which endpoints/schemas changed, etc.
  • Do they have all they appropriate links to blocked/related issues?
• Are the JIRAs under active development?
  • If not, contact the project's PO and make sure they're aware of the urgency.
• Do PRs exist for these changes?
  • If so, have they been approved?

Ideally all of the PRs involved in breaking changes would be merged in the same day to avoid breaking the folio-testing environment. Communication is paramount if that is to be achieved, especially as the number of intermodule and inter-team dependencies increase.

While it's helpful for reviewers to help identify potential problems, ensuring that it's safe to merge is ultimately the responsibility of the PR assignee.

[zburke]

This code hadn't changed in 3 years. Do we understand why it's suddenly broken? The PR description describes what is changing but does not describe why it fixes this bug.

Do we need to adjust how search is passed to history.push on line 175 as well? Anywhere else?

[Terala-Priyanka]

This code hadn't changed in 3 years. Do we understand why it's suddenly broken? The PR description describes what is changing but does not describe why it fixes this bug.

line#404 was changed from "pathname: params.id ? /users/preview/${params.id} : '/users'," to "pathname: params.id ? /users/preview/${params.id}${location.search} : '/users'," during August in the scope of PR #2533 (https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2928)
This PR was merged on August 8th 2023. No bugs were reported/surfaced until https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2947 and https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2971 were created during September and October.

I am not sure why passing the search params in the path has lead to these bugs, but for sure the change in current PR is fixing all the 3 bugs -

1. https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2928
2. https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2947
3. https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2971

Do we need to adjust how search is passed to history.push on line 175 as well? Anywhere else?

I don't see there is a need to update line#175. I have tested the create user record flow and seems to be working fine.

For some reason, today's P1 bug(UIU-2971) seems to report that the url queries are mal formed on initial load for several API calls like manualblocks, feefines and more.. The reason being :{id} in userId==:{id} of query is picking the search params in a broken way.

[zburke]

Thanks for the extra details, @Terala-Priyanka. I finally understand what's happening here: history.push(string) accepts a string with a query string but history.push(object) requires the object to have separate pathname and search properties.

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

100.0% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

[Terala-Priyanka]

This is for those visitors who might come back here ..
Upon testing on snapshot, post merge, it was identified that https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIU-2947 has not been fixed with the changes in this PR. For further information, please check the ticket in Jira.