Skip to content

fix: [PDI-3226] - Only show Maintenance Policy for Linodes that actually have a Maintenance Policy#13269

Merged
bnussman-akamai merged 5 commits intolinode:developfrom
bnussman-akamai:PDI-3226-only-show-maintenance-policy-for-linodes-that-support-it
Feb 3, 2026
Merged

fix: [PDI-3226] - Only show Maintenance Policy for Linodes that actually have a Maintenance Policy#13269
bnussman-akamai merged 5 commits intolinode:developfrom
bnussman-akamai:PDI-3226-only-show-maintenance-policy-for-linodes-that-support-it

Conversation

@bnussman-akamai
Copy link
Member

Description 📝

  • Adds extra conditional logic to the Linode Details page to ensure the new "Maintenance Policy" value only shows when the Linode actually supports it
  • Updates api-v4 types to reflect the API

Scope 🚢

Upon production release, changes in this PR will be visible to:

  • All customers
  • Some customers (e.g. in Beta or Limited Availability)
  • No customers / Not applicable

Preview 📷

Before After
Screenshot 2026-01-12 at 11 26 18 AM Screenshot 2026-01-12 at 11 31 46 AM
A maintenance policy is showing even though this Linode does not have one Now, no maintenance policy will show because the Linode does not have one

How to test 🧪

  • Have a Linode on your account that a maintenance_policy of null and does not have Maintenance Policy in the capabilities array
    • I used Chrome's "Override Content" feature to mock this
  • Verify the Maintenance Policy section does not show beside the Linode's status
Author Checklists

As an Author, to speed up the review process, I considered 🤔

👀 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


  • I have read and considered all applicable items listed above.

As an Author, before moving this PR from Draft to Open, I confirmed ✅

  • All tests and CI checks are passing
  • TypeScript compilation succeeded without errors
  • Code passes all linting rules

Copy link
Contributor

@dwiley-akamai dwiley-akamai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Verification steps ✅
Code review ✅
LinodeEntityDetail unit test passes locally & in CI ✅

@linode-gh-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Cloud Manager UI test results

🔺 1 failing test on test run #5 ↗︎

❌ Failing✅ Passing↪️ Skipped🕐 Duration
1 Failing864 Passing11 Skipped38m 37s

Details

Failing Tests
SpecTest
smoke-linode-landing-table.spec.tsCloud Manager Cypress Tests→linode landing checks for non-empty state with restricted user » checks restricted user with read access has no access to create linode and can see existing linodes

Troubleshooting

Use this command to re-run the failing tests:

pnpm cy:run -s "cypress/e2e/core/linodes/smoke-linode-landing-table.spec.ts"

Copy link
Contributor

@jdamore-linode jdamore-linode left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not real sure why that Linode landing page test is failing, it seems like the page is loading in summary view unexpectedly in the CI recording. Couldn't reproduce it locally and can't imagine it's caused by this PR's changes, but I'll keep an eye on it

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Review to Approved in Cloud Manager Feb 3, 2026
@bnussman-akamai bnussman-akamai merged commit 1fa4827 into linode:develop Feb 3, 2026
34 of 35 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Approved to Merged in Cloud Manager Feb 3, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Archived in project

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants