<!-- Comment:
A great PR typically begins with the line below.
Replace XXXXX with the numeric part of the issue ID you created in Jira.
Note that if you want your changes backported into LTS, you need to
create a Jira issue. See
https://www.jenkins.io/download/lts/#backporting-process for more
information.
-->
While investigating a security issue a few months back, I noticed that
our implementation of
`AbstractUserDetailsAuthenticationProvider.additionalAuthenticationChecks`
did not use the approach recommended in the superclass method's Javadoc,
which was a bit concerning after looking at some of the branches in
[this
code](8a6e1297a1/core/src/main/java/org/springframework/security/authentication/dao/AbstractUserDetailsAuthenticationProvider.java (L122-L169)).
After some investigation it seems fine, but I think it is worth noting
_why_ it is fine in case someone copies this code when creating a new
security realm and they want to use Spring Security's user caching
system.
<!-- Comment:
If the issue is not fully described in Jira, add more information here
(justification, pull request links, etc.).
* We do not require Jira issues for minor improvements.
* Bug fixes should have a Jira issue to facilitate the backporting
process.
* Major new features should have a Jira issue.
-->
### Testing done
This PR only updates a comment.
<!-- Comment:
Provide a clear description of how this change was tested.
At minimum this should include proof that a computer has executed the
changed lines.
Ideally this should include an automated test or an explanation as to
why this change has no tests.
Note that automated test coverage is less than complete, so a successful
PR build does not necessarily imply that a computer has executed the
changed lines.
If automated test coverage does not exist for the lines you are
changing, you must describe the scenario(s) in which you manually tested
the change.
For frontend changes, include screenshots of the relevant page(s) before
and after the change.
For refactoring and code cleanup changes, exercise the code before and
after the change and verify the behavior remains the same.
-->
### Proposed changelog entries
N/A
### Proposed upgrade guidelines
N/A
<!-- Comment:
Leave the proposed upgrade guidelines in the pull request with the "N/A"
value if no upgrade guidelines are needed.
The changelog generator relies on the presence of the upgrade guidelines
section as part of its data extraction process.
-->
```[tasklist]
### Submitter checklist
- [ ] The Jira 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](https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/blob/master/content/_data/changelogs/weekly.yml)). Fill in the **Proposed upgrade guidelines** section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/developer/security/csp/)).
- [ ] 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
<!-- Comment:
If you need an accelerated review process by the community (e.g., for
critical bugs), mention @jenkinsci/core-pr-reviewers.
-->
Before the changes are marked as `ready-for-merge`:
```[tasklist]
### Maintainer checklist
- [x] There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
- [x] 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](https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4387)).
- [ ] 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](https://issues.jenkins.io/issues/?filter=12146)).
```
<!-- Comment:
A great PR typically begins with the line below.
Replace XXXXX with the numeric part of the issue ID you created in Jira.
Note that if you want your changes backported into LTS, you need to
create a Jira issue. See
https://www.jenkins.io/download/lts/#backporting-process for more
information.
-->
See JENKINS-75100
Now that the [disable by default of
YUI](https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/10045) has been released
for ~1 month with no complaints its time to start thinking about
removing YUI itself.
We're passed the baseline cut-off for the next LTS which was what
@MarkEWaite requested that I wait for before removing YUI fully
What I've left:
* I've removed CSS where I think its safe but I haven't removed all
mentions of `yui`.
* `l:yui` I've changed it to do nothing but its used in a few
unmaintained plugins, I could remove this, thoughts?
* There's a few TODOs that say they could be cleaned up after yui was
removed for the component, but hasn't been done yet
ATH passed:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/acceptance-test-harness/pull/1884
Bom: https://github.com/jenkinsci/bom/pull/4176
<!-- Comment:
If the issue is not fully described in Jira, add more information here
(justification, pull request links, etc.).
* We do not require Jira issues for minor improvements.
* Bug fixes should have a Jira issue to facilitate the backporting
process.
* Major new features should have a Jira issue.
-->
### Testing done
Clicked around a number of pages and didn't see anything wrong.
<!-- Comment:
Provide a clear description of how this change was tested.
At minimum this should include proof that a computer has executed the
changed lines.
Ideally this should include an automated test or an explanation as to
why this change has no tests.
Note that automated test coverage is less than complete, so a successful
PR build does not necessarily imply that a computer has executed the
changed lines.
If automated test coverage does not exist for the lines you are
changing, you must describe the scenario(s) in which you manually tested
the change.
For frontend changes, include screenshots of the relevant page(s) before
and after the change.
For refactoring and code cleanup changes, exercise the code before and
after the change and verify the behavior remains the same.
-->
### Proposed changelog entries
- Remove the Yahoo! User Interface library
<!-- Comment:
The changelog entry should be in the imperative mood; e.g., write "do
this"/"return that" rather than "does this"/"returns that".
For examples, see: https://www.jenkins.io/changelog/
Do not include the Jira issue in the changelog entry.
Include the Jira issue in the description of the pull request so that
the changelog generator can find it and include it in the generated
changelog.
You may add multiple changelog entries if applicable by adding a new
entry to the list, e.g.
- First changelog entry
- Second changelog entry
-->
### Proposed upgrade guidelines
N/A
<!-- Comment:
Leave the proposed upgrade guidelines in the pull request with the "N/A"
value if no upgrade guidelines are needed.
The changelog generator relies on the presence of the upgrade guidelines
section as part of its data extraction process.
-->
```[tasklist]
### Submitter checklist
- [ ] The Jira 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](https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/blob/master/content/_data/changelogs/weekly.yml)). 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.
- [ ] 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](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/developer/security/csp/)).
- [ ] 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
<!-- Comment:
If you need an accelerated review process by the community (e.g., for
critical bugs), mention @jenkinsci/core-pr-reviewers.
-->
Before the changes are marked as `ready-for-merge`:
```[tasklist]
### 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](https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4387)).
- [ ] 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](https://issues.jenkins.io/issues/?filter=12146)).
```
Small little PR to update the 'Copy' button animation. You now get a
little more visual feedback that something has been copied successfully,
the copy symbol now transforms into a check mark.
**Before**
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/65e9c661-3465-4734-a67c-9ccbc66880a3
**After**
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0486dc96-1e15-4974-832e-298b3a8a59e8
In doing so the 'Copied' tooltip has been dropped, happy to hear
thoughts on this, I personally found it a little janky in how it
replaced the existing tooltip on click.
### Testing done
* Animation displays as expected, copying still works
### Proposed changelog entries
- Update the 'Copy' button animation
### Proposed upgrade guidelines
N/A
<!-- Comment:
Leave the proposed upgrade guidelines in the pull request with the "N/A"
value if no upgrade guidelines are needed.
The changelog generator relies on the presence of the upgrade guidelines
section as part of its data extraction process.
-->
```[tasklist]
### Submitter checklist
- [ ] The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
- [x] 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](https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/blob/master/content/_data/changelogs/weekly.yml)). Fill in the **Proposed upgrade guidelines** section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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](https://www.jenkins.io/doc/developer/security/csp/)).
- [ ] 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
@jenkinsci/sig-ux
<!-- Comment:
If you need an accelerated review process by the community (e.g., for
critical bugs), mention @jenkinsci/core-pr-reviewers.
-->
Before the changes are marked as `ready-for-merge`:
```[tasklist]
### Maintainer checklist
- [x] There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
- [x] 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](https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4387)).
- [ ] 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](https://issues.jenkins.io/issues/?filter=12146)).
```
Kris Stern
renovate[bot]
Jan Faracik
michael cirioli
Tim Jacomb
Devin Nusbaum
Basil Crow
Tim Jacomb
Tim Jacomb