* wip
* add method to OrganizationRepository
* server side fetching for availability
* fix error
* server side fetching finish
* remove log
* fix
* fix
* fix type
* no need to export
* fix type
* address nit comments
* added lockedSMS to future routes
* add orgMigrations routes to future
* correct metadata
* small fix
* add orgMigrations to future
* Move components to client components
* Remove tRPC element from edit user RSC
* Get username for meta
* Remove suspense query
* Remove orgMigrations from app router
* Type fix
* Revert "Remove suspense query"
This reverts commit eadd814f6e4a5d6856d9218342b7909c22fe62c6.
* Handle suspenseQuery in app router
* User edit page, fetch data server side
* Update yarn.lock
* Export getFixedT
* Set PageWrapper as root layout for settings
* Settings Layout accepts strings for shell heading
* Add OOO to app router settings
* Refactor layout for my-account pages
* Remove instances of pages router from my-account
* Refactor security pages
* Add billing to app router
* Add admin API link to layout
* Add api keys page
* Webhooks WIP
* Refactor SettingsHeader to client component
* Add webhook pages
* Refactor API keys page
* Add admin app page
* Type fix
* fix types
* fix developer/webhooks/[id] param value type error
* remove unnecessary code
* do not pass t prop to CreateNewWebhookButton
* fix type errors in webhook-edit-view
* fix the remaining type errors
* do not use prisma directly in generateMetadata
* remove use client if unnecessary
* Remove unused shell heading from SettingsLayoutAppDir
* improve metadata
* fix billing page
* fix import in settings/teams
* Use next `notFound()`
* fix type check
* fix type check
* remove unused code
* Fix calendar setting page
* Separate settings pages into route groups
* Refactor admin settings pages
* Remove meta instance from billing page route
* Update settings layoutAppDir
* Refactor developer settings pages
* Refactor out of office
* Refactor my account settings
* Refactor admin api page
* Refactor security pages
* Type fix
* fix styling in settings layout
---------
Co-authored-by: Somay Chauhan <somaychauhan98@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Omar López <zomars@me.com>
Co-authored-by: Benny Joo <sldisek783@gmail.com>
* feat: Create team event on a new team creation
* fix
* fixed failed tests
* move team event type form
* fix type error
* requested chnages
* update
* some update and refactor
* fix e2e test
* Update useCreateEventType.ts
* update
* fix type error
* fix e2e
* update
---------
Co-authored-by: Somay Chauhan <somaychauhan98@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Hariom Balhara <hariombalhara@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Keith Williams <keithwillcode@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Udit Takkar <53316345+Udit-takkar@users.noreply.github.com>
* Ensure adding isBookingPage is done in components in /modules, not in /pages
* Detect isBookingPage prop coming from Page and add it to page wrapper app dir
* fix build
* fix
---------
Co-authored-by: Joe Au-Yeung <65426560+joeauyeung@users.noreply.github.com>
* set the selectedDuration in store to duration passed in query
* Pass durationConfig prop to Booker component in /team/[slig]/[type] pages
---------
Co-authored-by: Udit Takkar <53316345+Udit-takkar@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Peer Richelsen <peeroke@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.
