* fixed some of the terms language
* minor changes
* Update apps/web/pages/settings/organizations/[id]/onboard-admins.tsx
* fixed yarn
* nit
* fix: trans
---------
Co-authored-by: Udit Takkar <udit222001@gmail.com>
## What does this PR do?
- This PR migrates the `/auth/sso/*` page group to the app directory (which runs under the App Router).
- The migrated page exists under `/future/auth/sso/*` and is accessible at all times.
## Requirement/Documentation
- If there is a requirement document, please, share it here.
- If there is ab UI/UX design document, please, share it here.
## Type of change
- [x] Chore (refactoring code, technical debt, workflow improvements)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How should this be tested?
There should be no changes between the old sso and new sso routes in terms of content and no downgrading in terms of performance.
The pages were not tested due to being unable to reproduce the flow locally.
## Mandatory Tasks
- [x] Make sure you have self-reviewed the code. A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected.
## What does this PR do?
- This PR migrates the `/auth/logout` and `/auth/signin` pages to the app directory (which runs under the App Router).
- Using `/future/auth/logout` is available at all times and is supposed to log the user out as `/auth/logout` page does.
- However `signin` page (or fragment) was used before should behave the same using the `/future/auth/signin` route.
## Requirement/Documentation
- If there is a requirement document, please, share it here.
- If there is ab UI/UX design document, please, share it here.
## Type of change
- [x] Chore (refactoring code, technical debt, workflow improvements)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How should this be tested?
- Using `/future/auth/logout` is available at all times and is supposed to log the user out as `/auth/logout` page does.
- However `signin` page (or fragment) was used before should behave the same using the `/future/auth/signin` route. It was not tested locally.
## Mandatory Tasks
- [x] Make sure you have self-reviewed the code. A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected.
## What does this PR do?
- This PR migrates the `/auth/verify` and `/auth/verify-email` pages to the app directory (which runs under the App Router).
- The migrated pages exist under `/future/auth/verify` and `/future/auth/verify-email` and are accessible at all times.
## Requirement/Documentation
- If there is a requirement document, please, share it here.
- If there is ab UI/UX design document, please, share it here.
## Type of change
- [x] Chore (refactoring code, technical debt, workflow improvements)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## How should this be tested?
There should be no changes between the old verify and new verify routes in terms of content and no downgrading in terms of performance.
The pages were not tested due to being unable to reproduce the flow locally.
## Mandatory Tasks
- [x] Make sure you have self-reviewed the code. A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected.
## What does this PR do?
<!-- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change. -->
Fixes # (issue)
<!-- Please provide a loom video for visual changes to speed up reviews
Loom Video: https://www.loom.com/
-->
## Requirement/Documentation
<!-- Please provide all documents that are important to understand the reason of that PR. -->
- If there is a requirement document, please, share it here.
- If there is ab UI/UX design document, please, share it here.
## Type of change
<!-- Please delete bullets that are not relevant. -->
- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- Chore (refactoring code, technical debt, workflow improvements)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
- Tests (Unit/Integration/E2E or any other test)
- This change requires a documentation update
## How should this be tested?
<!-- Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration. Write details that help to start the tests -->
- Are there environment variables that should be set?
- What are the minimal test data to have?
- What is expected (happy path) to have (input and output)?
- Any other important info that could help to test that PR
## Mandatory Tasks
- [ ] Make sure you have self-reviewed the code. A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected.
## Checklist
<!-- Remove bullet points below that don't apply to you -->
- I haven't read the [contributing guide](https://github.com/calcom/cal.com/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)
- My code doesn't follow the style guidelines of this project
- I haven't commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- I haven't checked if my PR needs changes to the documentation
- I haven't checked if my changes generate no new warnings
- I haven't added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- I haven't checked if new and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
