Skip to content

feat: add eol page #7990

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 69 commits into from
Aug 15, 2025
Merged

feat: add eol page #7990

merged 69 commits into from
Aug 15, 2025

Conversation

bmuenzenmeyer
Copy link
Collaborator

@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer commented Jul 16, 2025

Description

We now have a dedicated EOL page!

Changes not directly related to the scope

  • We also now have a more generic modal solution
  • Article layouts have site footers.

Validation

EOL Page - live preview at https://nodejs-org-git-eol-openjs.vercel.app/en/eol

image

EOL / Vulnerability Table

image

Details

image

Link updated here

image

and here

image

Vulnerability Blog Posts

image

Related Issues

closes #7906
closes #7899

Check List

  • All other links on all alert boxes across the website (blog post from Matteo, Download pages, Version modal, etc) go to the /EOL page - did not do Matteo's blog post yet - would rather someone else choose to editorialize that.
  • should /eol be in the nav? I did not include it anywhere currently
  • I have read the Contributing Guidelines and made commit messages that follow the guideline.
  • I have run pnpm format to ensure the code follows the style guide.
  • I have run pnpm test to check if all tests are passing.
  • I have run pnpm build to check if the website builds without errors.
  • I've covered new added functionality with unit tests if necessary.

Copy link

vercel bot commented Jul 16, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Preview Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org Ready Preview Aug 15, 2025 11:54am

@bmuenzenmeyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ran with HUSKY=0 - eslint failures on git commit on Windows. investigating

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 16, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 99.20000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 73.21%. Comparing base (cd078de) to head (97ac623).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ages/ui-components/src/Common/BaseButton/index.tsx 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7990      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.82%   73.21%   +0.38%     
==========================================
  Files          96       97       +1     
  Lines        8328     8452     +124     
  Branches      214      227      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits         6065     6188     +123     
- Misses       2262     2263       +1     
  Partials        1        1              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@ovflowd
Copy link
Member

ovflowd commented Jul 17, 2025

I feel this page should use a layout without the sidebar/metabar FYI

@bmuenzenmeyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bmuenzenmeyer commented Jul 17, 2025

I feel this page should use a layout without the sidebar/metabar FYI

that's fine - i just grabbed one quick - using page the default, does not render correctly (should open an issue for that. so using article for now)

this is page/default (not used anywhere)

image

@ovflowd
Copy link
Member

ovflowd commented Jul 19, 2025

@avivkeller can we use the new website for CVEs? https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-23166 instead of cve.mitre.org?

@ovflowd
Copy link
Member

ovflowd commented Jul 19, 2025

Also this description:

"There are 4+ known vulnerabilities associated with this Node.js release. Please review their severity and details to understand the potential impact." not sure if it is fitting. I think we should lean more into what CVEs are how to understand them what having these issues are... IDK; Throwing the "Please review their severity and details to understand the potential impact." to the end-user might not be ideal. I mean in the end that's whaty they're going to do anyways, but we could use such section to explain actual concrete details of what CVEs means, what clicking these links means, idk.

@ovflowd

This comment was marked as resolved.

@ovflowd

This comment was marked as resolved.

@ovflowd

This comment was marked as resolved.

@ovflowd

This comment was marked as resolved.

@bmuenzenmeyer

This comment was marked as resolved.

Signed-off-by: Claudio Wunder <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@ovflowd ovflowd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bmuenzenmeyer I left some final comments here. But we're almost there!

Co-authored-by: Claudio Wunder <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Brian Muenzenmeyer <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@ovflowd ovflowd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ovflowd ovflowd added the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Aug 15, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Aug 15, 2025
@ovflowd ovflowd added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 5909a0b Aug 15, 2025
20 checks passed
@ovflowd ovflowd deleted the eol branch August 15, 2025 12:01
'4',
'5',
]);
it('treats <= as inclusive of the specified major only (based on current implementation)', async () => {
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it's unfortunate to see this business logic and testing paved over without discussion.
This was implemented directly from the blog post assertion in bold:

As the security advisory notes, "End-of-Life versions are always affected when a security release occurs", meaning Node.js 18 and all earlier versions have these same vulnerabilities but will never receive patches.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Apologies, I didn't make changes to the logic, should still be the same constraint as it was before? Feel free to open a PR.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no worries. the test suite will be able to illustrate what we think is right. i will open an issue when i have time and seek clarity from matteo and security

import { SEVERITY_ORDER } from '#site/next.constants.mjs';
import type { Severity, Vulnerability } from '#site/types';

import VulnerabilityChip from './VulnerabilityChip';
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks like the refactor created some relative imports

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think same level relative imports are OK, no? cc @nodejs/nodejs-website

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.

Dedicated EOL page Move the homepage security link to the banner