While Next.js can handle static sites, we've had a few issues with it, notably a performance hit at runtime and some bugginess around routing and SSR. Gatsby being fully intended for high-performance static sites makes it a great technical fit for the Shields frontend. The `createPages()` API should be a really nice way to add a page for each service family, for example.
This migrates the frontend from Next.js to Gatsby. Gatsby is a powerful tool, which has a bit of downside as there's a lot to dig through. Overall I found configuration easier than Next.js. There are a lot of plugins and for the most part they worked out of the box. The documentation is good.
Links are cleaner now: there is no #. This will break old links though perhaps we could add some redirection to help with that. The only one I’m really concerned about `/#/endpoint`. I’m not sure if folks are deep-linking to the category pages.
There are a lot of enhancements we could add, in order to speed up the site even more. In particular we could think about inlining the SVGs rather than making separate requests for each one.
While Gatsby recommends GraphQL, it's not required. To keep things simple and reduce the learning curve, I did not use it here.
Close#1943Fix#2837Fix#2616
This implements the configuration mechanism I described in #2621. The heavy lifting is delegated to [node-config](https://github.com/lorenwest/node-config) with a minor assist from [dotenv](https://github.com/motdotla/dotenv).
`private/secret.json` has been replaced with environment variables and/or `config/local.yml`. See `doc/server-secrets.md`.
Because `server.js` was long a monolith, there are a bunch of shims in place to facilitate unit testing. A few of the test suites share port 1111 which means if one of them fails to set up, the port won't be freed and other unrelated tests will fail. Some of the tests which trigger server setup include timeouts which were added to give setup code time to run. In one the test suites, we actually modify `process.argv`, which seems completely gross.
This implements a few changes which improve this:
1. Separate the server from the server startup script, splitting out `lib/server.js`.
2. Inject config into the server and validate the config schema.
3. Inject config into the service test runner.
4. Use `portfinder`, a popular utility for grabbing open ports during testing.
5. Switch more of the setup code from callbacks to async-await.
Overall it leaves everything acting more reliably and looking rather cleaner, if in a few places more verbose.
It also fixes the root cause of #1455, a `setTimeout` in `rate-limit`. Off and on during development of this changeset, Mocha would decide not to exit, and that turned out to be the culprit.
Fix#1455
We use arrow functions in most places; this enforces it.
Passing arrow functions to Mocha is discouraged: https://mochajs.org/#arrow-functions
This was a mix of autofixes and hand adjustments.
