Blueprints: Update validation

[ivan-ottinger]

Related issues

• Resolves STU-1007
• Related to STU-1008

Proposed Changes

• extract out the blueprint validation logic into utility validateBlueprintData function - so it can be reused easily
• display validation error message in a dialog when incorrect blueprint is passed in a deeplink
• remove unnecessary second deeplink blueprint validation from the renderer process
• update and add related unit tests
• ensure the deeplink that opens blueprint from a linked URL gets the user to the "Add a site" step directly (instead of the previous "Start from a Blueprint" step)

ℹ️ Please note that this PR does not add validation to the handling of deeplinks that include the base64-encoded blueprint. This is because we will have another PR that will refactor and unify the logic that handles both deeplink types: STU-1008.

Testing Instructions

1. Check out the PR and build the app with npm install && npm start.
2. Try to open the blueprint deeplinks provided here: https://jsbin.com/levaburate/2/edit?html,css,output.

• First two should result in a dialog error message.
• The third one should get you to the "Add a site" step and allow you to create a new site with it.

3. Try to manually create sites using blueprint files from 39a4e-pb. The results should be as expected - there should be no regressions.

Pre-merge Checklist

• Have you checked for TypeScript, React or other console errors?

[github-actions]

📊 Performance Test Results

Comparing 596772d vs trunk

site-editor

Metric	trunk	596772d	Diff	Change
load	14910.00 ms	12068.00 ms	-2842.00 ms	🟢 -19.1%

site-startup

Metric	trunk	596772d	Diff	Change
siteCreation	20065.00 ms	21208.00 ms	+1143.00 ms	🔴 5.7%
siteStartup	9982.00 ms	10040.00 ms	+58.00 ms	🔴 0.6%

---

Results are median values from multiple test runs.

Legend: 🟢 Improvement (faster) | 🔴 Regression (slower) | ⚪ No change

[gcsecsey]

Thanks for refactoring the validation @ivan-ottinger, and for updating the tests! I tested both blueprints from the drive and a couple from the blueprints gallery, and I'm getting the same validation issues reported as on trunk.

Invalid URL	Invalid Blueprint	Valid Blueprint

[gcsecsey]

I was thinking maybe we can log this, but as this is a temporary file, I think this is fine to skip. 👍

[gavande1]

@ivan-ottinger, I believe we are validating the blueprint twice as per the suggested changes in this PR. Is it intended, or am I missing something? Do you think we should refactor that?

studio/src/modules/add-site/hooks/use-blueprint-deeplink.ts

Lines 143 to 150 in 0ea9e30

	const blueprintJson = await getIpcApi().readBlueprintFile( pendingBlueprintPath );
	const validation = await getIpcApi().validateBlueprint( blueprintJson );
	if ( ! validation.valid ) {
	const errorMessage = validation.error || __( 'Invalid Blueprint format' );
	throw new Error( errorMessage );
	}

[gavande1]

I have tested this and it works as expected. I have left a comment about duplicate validation. Otherwise, the changes look good to me.

[ivan-ottinger]

Thank you for your reviews and testing, Gergely and Rahul!

@ivan-ottinger, I believe we are validating the blueprint twice as per the suggested changes in this PR. Is it intended, or am I missing something? Do you think we should refactor that?

That's a good catch, @gavande1! This second validation is no longer needed - since we validate earlier in the flow, before even the modal has a chance to open.

I have addressed that in 6560c93 and the PR is ready for another review round. 🙂

I am looking forward to the next simplifications related to STU-1008 in the next PR.

[gcsecsey]

Thanks for removing the extra validation, the updated version LGTM and still works well in all scenarios. 🙌

[gavande1]

Thanks @ivan-ottinger for addressing the feedback. LGTM 👍