feat(webui): redesign the footer element

[shubham-j-sde]

this resolves #286

I have tried to design footer similar to Kvrocks website.

Open to any suggestions on the same.

[SharonIV0x86]

@shubham-j-sde
Thanks for your contribution. The existing codebase primarily uses JSX, while your files are in TSX. Although TSX is more modern and type-safe, for the scope of this PR, you can either convert your files to JSX for consistency or keep them as TSX.

That said, quite possible in future we might consider migrating the project from JSX to TSX, so keeping your files in TSX could be beneficial. Its just a suggestion, you can proceed however you'd like.

[shubham-j-sde]

I see that, but

1. wouldn't now rather be best time to include typescript since website is just in beginning development, rather to include after having bunch of functions, exports, dependencies and what not. changing dependencies and including type check is a pain, trust me.
2. we are using Next.js so typescript support comes built-in
3. Next.js community encourages using Typescript; following community standards helps in resolving bugs and including new features much more simple and easy.
4. and as @SharonIV0x86 you very well highlighted, Typescript is more safe and modern practice.

Honestly, i believe current code lacks even some Next.js module standards, not to mention basic web accessibility standards. and that's what we need to work upon. your thoughts?

[SharonIV0x86]

wouldn't now rather be best time to include typescript since website is just in beginning development, rather to include after having bunch of functions, exports, dependencies and what not. changing dependencies and including type check is a pain, trust me.

This is very true and i agree with this the sooner we adapt with thr typescript ecosystem the better.

However, this is an important decision, and while I'm happy to contribute in any way I can, the final call rests with the maintainers. Looking ahead, whether now or in the future, transitioning to typescript will be essential for a long-term development strategy.

Honestly, i believe current code lacks even some Next.js module standards, not to mention basic web accessibility standards. and that's what we need to work upon. your thoughts?

NextJS is amazing and offers a lot of cool stuff with optimizations and all, I believe this can be worked later on. As the current focus is to develop a MVP of the kvrocks-controller with the essential things integrated in it.

[shubham-j-sde]

@SharonIV0x86 , I really value your time and opinion and our brainstorming discussion to decide whats best for community and users of Kvrocks and Cluster controller. and I'd be happy to change to JSX if needed. but as we are still discussing, i'd propose reasons for why to include TS now.

1. Typescript is not an optimization, its more reliable language, ensure safety, scalability and easy to maintain in long run. ref1 ref2

As the current focus is to develop a MVP of the kvrocks-controller with the essential things integrated in it.

Yeah I agree with you and i am saying both things are possible, so we do them along with using best practices together. 😃

Looking ahead, whether now or in the future, transitioning to typescript will be essential for a long-term development strategy.

It's not transitioning if done now, current website got live just a few days back, so it will cost no additional bandwidth.

Doing this now would save lot of future bandwidth (which are difficult to get hold of for open source project) for community to work upon developing new features, This would also save any possible downtime for users during future migration.

Using modern practices also means less worry for dependency failures in near future.

Honestly, i believe current code lacks even some Next.js module standards, not to mention basic web accessibility standards.

And Lack of Module standards is Red Flag for Open Source project as it hinders new users to follow code and contribute.

[PragmaTwice]

Thank you for your contribution!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 46.34%. Comparing base (6c56470) to head (b2e5e5c).
Report is 50 commits behind head on unstable.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           unstable     #287      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     43.38%   46.34%   +2.95%     
============================================
  Files            37       45       +8     
  Lines          2971     4296    +1325     
============================================
+ Hits           1289     1991     +702     
- Misses         1544     2097     +553     
- Partials        138      208      +70     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	46.34% <ø> (+2.95%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.