change: [M3-8362] – Update placement group policy text copy

[carrillo-erik]

Description 📝

This PR changes the text copy found in the Placement Group create drawer, under the "Placement Group Policy" radio buttons descriptions.

Changes 🔄

The text copy updates are as follows:

• Strict
  • Old: You can’t assign Linodes if the preferred container defined by your Affinity Type lacks capacity or is unavailable (best practice).
  • New: Allows the addition of more compute instances to the group as long as the placement group remains compliant.
• Flexible
  • Old: You can assign Linodes, even if they’re not in the preferred container defined by your Affinity Type, but your placement group will be non-compliant.
  • New: Allows the addition of more compute instances to the group even if it breaks the placement group’s compliance.
• Created two constants to hold the text copy instead of hard coding it inside the component.

Target release date 🗓️

08/05/2024

Preview 📷

Before	After

How to test 🧪

Prerequisites

(How to setup test environment)

• Pull this branch and run it on your local machine.
• Visit the Placement Groups create drawer by using the Create dropdown menu or the Placement Groups landing page and clicking the Create Placement Group button.

Verification steps

(How to verify changes)

• Verify that the copy updates reflected in these changes match the description found in the Changes section above.

As an Author I have considered 🤔

Check all that apply

• 👀 Doing a self review
• ❔ Our contribution guidelines
• 🤏 Splitting feature into small PRs
• ➕ Adding a changeset
• 🧪 Providing/Improving test coverage
• 🔐 Removing all sensitive information from the code and PR description
• 🚩 Using a feature flag to protect the release
• 👣 Providing comprehensive reproduction steps
• 📑 Providing or updating our documentation
• 🕛 Scheduling a pair reviewing session
• 📱 Providing mobile support
• ♿ Providing accessibility support

[dwiley-akamai]

Confirmed copy changes ✅

Should we have a changeset for this?

[carrillo-erik]

Confirmed copy changes ✅

Should we have a changeset for this?

I just pushed it, I had checked the checkbox but got sidetracked and hadn't included it.

[github-actions]

Coverage Report: ✅
Base Coverage: 82.36%
Current Coverage: 82.36%

[jdamore-linode]

@carrillo-erik Merging in the latest changes from develop should resolve the Volumes failures, and the Linode delete failure can be disregarded because it's been flaky for a while, but I'm hoping to get to the bottom of those failures in the Linode Create w/ Firewall tests

[jdamore-linode]

Looks like the changes in create-linode-with-firewall.spec.ts are causing the test failures in CI. Calling mockAppendFeatureFlags() in the test body overrides the call to mockAppendFeatureFlags() in the before hook, causing the tests to fail in any LD environment where the Linode Create refactor is not actually enabled.

Normally in a case like this, the solution would be to consolidate the calls to mockAppendFeatureFlags(), but in this case we'll just remove all of these changes since the gecko2 feature flag override isn't necessary since the related PR was reverted.

[carrillo-erik]

Looks like the changes in create-linode-with-firewall.spec.ts are causing the test failures in CI. Calling mockAppendFeatureFlags() in the test body overrides the call to mockAppendFeatureFlags() in the before hook, causing the tests to fail in any LD environment where the Linode Create refactor is not actually enabled.

Normally in a case like this, the solution would be to consolidate the calls to mockAppendFeatureFlags(), but in this case we'll just remove all of these changes since the gecko2 feature flag override isn't necessary since the related PR was reverted.

@jdamore-linode That's good info, thanks for sharing. It's also interesting because I recognized that I was repeating the same operation for each test, so I had consolidated the calls as you described and the tests failed. In any event, I've merged the latest from developed and removed the previous changes as requested.

[jdamore-linode]

Thanks @carrillo-erik! Approved pending CI passing (and I'll follow up if there are failures since there are a couple unrelated flaky tests atm)

I had consolidated the calls as you described and the tests failed

Hm -- wish I had an explanation for you as to why that didn't work!