Since these usually result from changes to HTML templates and other
frontend-side things, it seems better to group them with the frontend.
[Tweaked by gnprice in whitespace and comments.]
Notably, this adds our checks on translated message strings to
`tools/test-all`, so that they don't cause surprise failures in
CI after a branch is pushed. (Alternately they could have gone
in `tools/lint` to accomplish the same goal, but `makemessages`
which they depend on is quite slow -- on my machine it takes 7s,
compared to 10s for all of `tools/lint`.)
With this change, we are now testing the production static asset
pipeline and installation process in a new testing job (and also run
the frontend/backend tests separately).
This means that changes that break the Zulip static asset pipeline or
production installation process are more likely to fail tests. The
testing is imperfect in that it does not have proper isolation -- we
build a complete Zulip development environment and then install a
Zulip production environment on top of it, so e.g. any apt
dependencies installed for Zulip development will still be available
for the Zulip production environment. But, it's better than nothing!
A good v2 of this would be to have the production setup process just
install the minimum stuff needed to run `build-release-tarball` and
then uninstall it / clean it up so that we can do a more clear
production installation, but that's more work.
Tim Abbott
Robert Hönig
Greg Price
Joshua Pan
Eklavya Sharma
Tim Abbott