Hide preview button for 'EscapedMarkupFormatter'

[janfaracik]

Unlike other formatters, the 'Preview' link doesn't do anything for the default 'EscapedMarkupFormatter' formatter, clicking it just presents back the escaped version of the text the user has entered in. Intention would be to remove this link for the default formatter where afaik it doesn't serve a purpose, and keep it for other formatters.

Before

After

Testing done

• Preview link isn't visible for 'EscapedMarkupFormatter'
• Preview link is visible for other formatters

Proposed changelog entries

• Hide preview button for 'EscapedMarkupFormatter'

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
2. 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.
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
6. 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).
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@jenkinsci/sig-ux

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

Maintainer checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
5. 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).
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[daniel-beck]

clicking it just presents back the escaped version of the text the user has entered in

Mostly at least. A notable exception is that tab characters aren't retained. (At least consecutive spaces and line breaks are both retained.)

I'm ±0 on this. It looks a little nicer but loses some information (more about which formatter it is than what it looks like).

[MarkEWaite]

I'm "+1" for the change but I think it will need to be checked that it does not break tests in the plugin bill of materials or in the acceptance test harness.

[janfaracik]

/label web-ui

[jtnord]

code logic looks incorrect in that it ignores any user defined preview endpoint

[jtnord]

Am I missing something?
Nothing ties previews to markup formatters does it? if so nothing here says the preview needs to be done using only a the Jenkins MarkupFormatter.

Suggested change

	<j:if test="${attrs.previewEndpoint!=null and !readOnlyMode and app.markupFormatter.class.name != 'hudson.markup.EscapedMarkupFormatter'}">
	<j:if test="${attrs.previewEndpoint!=null and !readOnlyMode and (app.markupFormatter.class.name != 'hudson.markup.EscapedMarkupFormatter or attrs.previewEndpoint != '/markupFormatter/previewDescription')'}">

That is I could have a jenkins using the EscapedMarkupFormatter but I may have set the previewEndPoint to MyDescriptorImpl.preview(String)

Indeed, the test on line 111 does implies that I should be able to use this irrespective of any global markup formatter.

a completely contrived example could be where a user supplies some toml, and my descriptor takes that toml (per job) and merges it with some global toml to create the "end toml" which is then displayed to the user?