MNTOR-5066 - Big data broker FE removal #6314

codemist · 2025-11-26T18:59:52Z

References:

Description

This PR begins the process of removing all data-broker–related information from the front end while minimizing changes to the backend as much as possible. I started with the Dashboard and am working outward from there, since everything is deeply connected and any component referencing OneRepScanResultRow or related OneRep types needs to be carefully unraveled.

I could be wrong here (and also because we didn't really formally decide on a protocol for the FE removal) but because of the amount of prop drilling and cross-component coupling, doing this in tiny incremental PRs each removal step tends to cascade into linting issues, build errors, or broken types. Instead, this PR represents the first major chunk in a slow, deliberate phase-out. It should be reviewed in sections, and it will definitely require a thorough regression test.

The overall goal is to steadily strip out all OneRep/data-broker UI surfaces without destabilizing unrelated areas of the app. Subsequent PRs will continue this clean-up process once this foundation is in place.

Screenshot (if applicable)

Not applicable.

How to test

Checklist (Definition of Done)

Vinnl · 2025-11-27T15:39:15Z

As just discussed: I've unassigned myself as a reviewer for now, as you can focus on removing everything that's related (backend as well), and then re-assign me when the checks succeed and it's ready for review again.

kschelonka · 2025-12-01T22:58:13Z

src/scripts/cronjobs/firstDataBrokerRemovalFixed.tsx

FYI these cron jobs are handled in #6289, which is scheduled to be merged after Dec 17

Thanks for the heads up, just approved. Please merge it when you can; I’ll rebase right after to avoid more merge conflicts.
Note: since this is part of the deprecation work without a feature flag, we’ll probably want to hold off on any production pushes this week (and next).

I was planning on waiting to merge until closer to the release date (we can't release before Dec 17). If it's in there, it will make releasing anything else much more complex because we'll have to cherry-pick commits... Thoughts?

@kschelonka Would it make sense to base that PR on this branch, so we can test/release in one go?

codemist · 2025-12-04T05:46:55Z

Build is finally passing. I’m working through the unit tests now, mostly cleanup around the calculation logic. I haven’t touched any of the Plus shutdown logic yet, so I kept the hasPremium checks as-is for now (only in that area) to avoid increasing the scope. It’s in decent enough shape for a review if you want to take a look, and I’ll keep chipping away at the remaining fixes.

codemist · 2025-12-04T19:56:35Z

src/app/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(public)/LandingView.stories.tsx

      props.experimentData ?? defaultExperimentData["Features"];
    const enabledFeatureFlags = props.enabledFeatureFlags ?? [];
    return (
-      <AccountsMetricsFlowProvider


Traced all of this logic back to #4822 which is Plus related.

codemist · 2025-12-05T19:13:13Z

src/app/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(public)/LandingView.test.tsx

+it("sends telemetry when a free scan CTA is shown in the viewport", async () => {
+  const mockedRecord = useTelemetry();
+  const ComposedDashboard = composeStory(LandingNonUs, Meta);
+  render(<ComposedDashboard />);
+
+  // jsdom will complain about not being able to navigate to a different page
+  // after clicking the link; suppress that error, as it's not relevant to the test:
+  jest.spyOn(console, "error").mockImplementation(() => undefined);
+
+  // The useViewTelemetry ref is attached to the form, not the button
+  const submitButton = screen.getAllByRole("button", {
+    name: "Get free scan",
+  });
+  const form = submitButton[0].closest("form");
+  expect(form).toBeInTheDocument();
+
+  // Trigger intersection on the form element
+  await act(async () => {
+    mockIsIntersecting(form!, true);
+  });
+
+  expect(mockedRecord).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+    "ctaButton",
+    "view",
+    expect.objectContaining({ button_id: "clicked_get_scan_header" }),
+  );
+});


I traced this component back to https://github.com/mozilla/blurts-server/pull/4794/files, so I rewrote the test to only account for the “Get Free Scan” non-US state.

codemist · 2025-12-05T19:14:35Z

...pp/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/user/(dashboard)/dashboard/fix/FixView.test.tsx

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+/* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public


A lot of the old dashboard US/Plus tests added coverage in places that were hard to separate from the core interactions in the FixView component (which is basically the foundation for all guided resolution flows). It ended up being cleaner to just rewrite this part instead of trying to untangle the old logic.

codemist · 2025-12-05T19:16:01Z

...)/(authenticated)/user/(dashboard)/dashboard/fix/high-risk-data-breaches/FraudAlertModal.tsx

          isDismissable={true}
        >
          <Dialog
+            onDismiss={() => overlayTriggerState.close()}


I tracked down why onDismiss wasn’t being passed by default, it was only missing in this dialog component, which seemed inconsistent with our patterns. The dismiss button really should be a non-optional part of the dialog component, so I made it unconditional and added it directly to this component. It looked fine in Storybook, so I also added a test for coverage.

codemist · 2025-12-05T19:39:11Z

Update: I could definitely spend more time fully cleaning up every last piece of code related to sunsetting Plus, but this should be a solid starting point to meet the Dec 17 deadline. There are still a few scattered mentions of Plus/Premium/subscriptions across the codebase, and some additional decoupling of feature flags that we can do later. But overall, I think this is in a good enough state for review (coverage back at 100%).

I've tried to leave comments where the reasoning behind a change wasn’t immediately obvious, or where I removed something that might raise questions. I didn’t annotate every file because that would get unwieldy, so if anything feels unclear, please just ping me, I can spend some extra time doing a self-review and adding more context where needed.

The remaining follow-up steps I see:

Remove all OneRep types from the Knex tables file.
I’ve kept the hasPremium function for now to support the Plus shutdown banner, it should behave the same as before, and that’s the only place it's currently used.

There’s still some potential cleanup around naming conventions in Storybook components and unused utility functions, but that’s starting to veer into tech debt rather than sunset work, so I’m pausing on that for now.

Let me know if anything looks off or if you'd like me to walk through parts of it!

kschelonka · 2025-12-05T21:35:15Z

src/app/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/admin/dev/page.tsx

  const session = await getServerSession();
-  if (
-    !session?.user?.email ||
-    !isAdmin(session.user.email) ||


question: this doesn't seem related to onerep specifically. can you explain the motivation behind the changes here?

kschelonka · 2025-12-05T21:36:36Z

src/app/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/admin/feature-flags/page.tsx

-            lastScanDate={null}
-            // We're not going to run experiments on the feature flag page (it's
-            // not user-visible), so no need to fetch experiment data:
-            experimentData={defaultExperimentData["Features"]}


question: the default data is no longer necessary?

kschelonka · 2025-12-05T21:37:44Z

src/app/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/admin/prod/page.tsx

    return notFound();
  }
-
-  const enabledFeatureFlags = await getEnabledFeatureFlags({


I'll stop commenting after this one, but just curious why removing feature flag integrations

kschelonka · 2025-12-05T21:39:54Z

...p/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/user/(dashboard)/dashboard/Dashboard.stories.tsx

-    if (props.brokers && props.brokers !== "no-scan") {
-      const scanInProgress = props.brokers === "scan-in-progress";
-      scanData.scan = scanInProgress ? mockedScanInProgress : mockedScan;
+  const scanCount = 0;


unneeded const maybe?

kschelonka · 2025-12-05T21:45:05Z

src/app/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/user/(dashboard)/dashboard/View.tsx

-      parseIso8601Datetime((b as OnerepScanResultRow).created_at);
+  const arraySortedByDate = breachesDataArray.sort((a, b) => {
+    const dateA = a.addedDate;
+    const dateB = b.addedDate;


nit: this can be onelined

const arraySortedByDate = breachesDataArray.sort((a, b) => b.addedDate.getTime() - a.addedDate.getTime())

kschelonka · 2025-12-05T21:51:43Z

src/app/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/user/(dashboard)/dashboard/View.tsx

-    if (!hasUnresolvedExposures && hasFixedExposures) {
-      return (
-        <>
-          <Image src={AllFixedIllustration} alt="" />
-          <strong>
-            {l10n.getString("dashboard-exposures-all-fixed-label")}
-          </strong>
-          {freeScanCta}
-        </>


this seems still relevant? if I'm reading it correctly it should also be shown for if you fixed all breaches? or is this broker-specific

kschelonka · 2025-12-05T21:54:29Z

src/app/(proper_react)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/user/(dashboard)/dashboard/fix/FixView.tsx

 export const FixView = (props: FixViewProps) => {
  const l10n = useL10n();
  const recordTelemetry = useTelemetry();
-  const isResolutionLayout = [


why is this no longer relevant?

kschelonka · 2025-12-05T22:03:02Z

...)/(redesign)/(authenticated)/user/(dashboard)/settings/panels/SettingsPanelNotifications.tsx

 import { CONST_URL_MOZILLA_BASKET } from "../../../../../../../../constants";

-// The monthly email for free users is currently disabled; see MNTOR-4970.
-const isFreeMonthlyMonitorReportDisabledSeeMNTOR4970 = true;


kschelonka · 2025-12-05T22:16:04Z

...gn)/(authenticated)/user/(dashboard)/settings/stories/SettingsEditInfoNonUsUsers.stories.tsx

+const maxEmails = () => {
+  const emails = [];
+  for (let i = 1; i <= CONST_MAX_NUM_ADDRESSES; i++) {
+    emails.push(mockRandomEmail(i));
+  }
+
+  return emails;
+};


nit: there's a nice one-liner for this instead of mutating an array:

Array.from({ length: CONST_MAX_NUM_ADDRESSES }, (_, index) => mockRandomEmail(index));

codemist requested a review from Vinnl November 26, 2025 19:04

Vinnl removed their request for review November 27, 2025 15:15

kschelonka reviewed Dec 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

codemist mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2025

MNTOR-5033 - Remove SidebarNavigationRedesign flag #6193

Closed

10 tasks

codemist added the 🛑 Do Not Merge Do not merge this PR, even if approved. label Dec 2, 2025

codemist marked this pull request as draft December 2, 2025 13:19

codemist force-pushed the mntor-5066 branch from ac279c8 to dfe9cc7 Compare December 2, 2025 13:26

codemist added 21 commits December 2, 2025 14:12

remove data broker from dashboard

4ecaf75

big sweep

7f18d44

fix build errors

709ef55

fix filterexposures component

320ee16

remove data broker from exposurecarddataclass

ada3de5

fix dashboard top banner

4600fff

fix resolution container

03e4986

fix guided resolution flow

f539857

include missed story

8a29722

fix build error in high riks data breaches

41f1a46

remove email address plus const

afe4e1a

remove emails

2c6f25e

big sweep

5539019

remove isEligibleForPremium guard

5692b54

remove dashboard tests

1bd8306

fix bad rebase

022a131

Remove plus settings stories

8ad23bd

landing page remaining deprecation

8c50d6b

remove data broker exposure card tests and onerep functions

1b67fd9

onerep funcs cleanup

3d78536

remove removalprocess

921899a

codemist force-pushed the mntor-5066 branch from 9e76cbc to 921899a Compare December 2, 2025 19:25

codemist added 3 commits December 3, 2025 22:00

remove location data from build command

05848b2

remove broken imports

d302587

fix unit tests

54a1858

codemist marked this pull request as ready for review December 4, 2025 05:39

codemist requested a review from Vinnl December 4, 2025 05:40

fix breaking build

2091b5e

codemist added 3 commits December 4, 2025 11:18

add invalid test case

956fcdf

fix tests

9d5f86e

remove accounts metric flow and search param logic

8a1d253

codemist commented Dec 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

codemist added 3 commits December 4, 2025 16:02

fix unit tests

843046d

add useviewtelemetry test

f9de655

fix all tests

60a0e4a

codemist commented Dec 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

remove more subscription code

be97d80

codemist removed the 🛑 Do Not Merge Do not merge this PR, even if approved. label Dec 5, 2025

codemist requested a review from kschelonka December 5, 2025 19:41

kschelonka reviewed Dec 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

		@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
		/* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public

MNTOR-5066 - Big data broker FE removal #6314

Are you sure you want to change the base?

MNTOR-5066 - Big data broker FE removal #6314

Conversation

codemist commented Nov 26, 2025

References:

Description

Screenshot (if applicable)

How to test

Checklist (Definition of Done)

Uh oh!

Vinnl commented Nov 27, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codemist commented Dec 4, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codemist Dec 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codemist Dec 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codemist commented Dec 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

codemist Dec 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codemist Dec 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading