Skip to content

Conversation

@bmuenzenmeyer
Copy link
Contributor

@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer commented Jan 31, 2026

Description

Expands the footer to now have three main sections.
Our top-bar that has version info on the left and social info on the right
A bottom section devoted to legal information

Validation

https://nodejs-org-git-openjs-footer-openjs.vercel.app/en

image image image

Related Issues

closes #8574

Check List

  • I have read the Contributing Guidelines and made commit messages that follow the guideline.
  • I have run pnpm format to ensure the code follows the style guide.
  • I have run pnpm test to check if all tests are passing.
  • I have run pnpm build to check if the website builds without errors.
  • I've covered new added functionality with unit tests if necessary.

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 31, 2026

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org Ready Ready Preview Jan 31, 2026 6:13pm

Request Review

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

👋 Codeowner Review Request

The following codeowners have been identified for the changed files:

Team reviewers: @nodejs/nodejs-website @nodejs/web-infra

Please review the changes when you have a chance. Thank you! 🙏

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 31, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 75.01%. Comparing base (5046ba5) to head (dcb5719).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8577      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   74.95%   75.01%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         103      103              
  Lines        9037     9053      +16     
  Branches      312      312              
==========================================
+ Hits         6774     6791      +17     
+ Misses       2261     2260       -1     
  Partials        2        2              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 31, 2026

📦 Build Size Comparison

Summary

Metric Value
Old Total Size 3.74 MB
New Total Size 3.75 MB
Delta 1.28 KB (+0.03%)

Changes

➕ Added Assets (2)
Name Size
.next/static/chunks/ac0e4cd41347c2ae.js 135.90 KB
.next/static/chunks/8cd1b8bb94998a9a.js 206.55 KB
➖ Removed Assets (2)
Name Size
.next/static/chunks/45412bc22cb3e0f9.js 135.02 KB
.next/static/chunks/49847f5e28b57619.js 206.15 KB

@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer changed the title Openjs footer Adds OpenJS Footer Jan 31, 2026
"trademarkPolicy": "Trademark Policy",
"trademarkList": "Trademark List",
"cookiePolicy": "Cookie Policy",
"security": "Security Policy"
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The retention of the security policy here means it is ADDED to the OpenJS footer. I think this is acceptable, as we purposely put it there at one point to expand visibility.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This file is the only place the new writing is placed. It's slightly duplicative between legal paragraph and the links which are used later, but I think it's acceptable considering alternatives

@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer marked this pull request as ready for review January 31, 2026 17:03
@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer requested review from a team as code owners January 31, 2026 17:03
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 31, 2026 17:03
@ovflowd
Copy link
Member

ovflowd commented Jan 31, 2026

image

Should there be a max width? on large screens it does look a bit weird, but fine leaving as is

"containers": {
"footer": {
"legal": "Copyright <openjsf>OpenJS Foundation</openjsf> and Node.js contributors. All rights reserved. The <openjsf>OpenJS Foundation</openjsf> has registered trademarks and uses trademarks. For a list of trademarks of the <openjsf>OpenJS Foundation</openjsf>, please see our <trademarkPolicy>Trademark Policy</trademarkPolicy> and <trademarkList>Trademark List</trademarkList>. Trademarks and logos not indicated on the <trademarkList>list of OpenJS Foundation trademarks</trademarkList> are trademarks&trade; or registered&reg; trademarks of their respective holders. Use of them does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by them.",
"links": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why we need these individual keys?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The links? The diff is hard to see if you are point at line 5 or line 6.

The openjs guidance is a paragraph with links and a list of links afterwards, which makes for duplication...somewhere. I've chosen to put the duplication in the translation strings rather than the code

Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR implements the OpenJS Foundation best practices for website footers by restructuring the footer into three sections: a primary section with version badges, a secondary section with social media links, and a new legal section containing copyright text and policy links.

Changes:

  • Restructured Footer component to support a new 'legal' slot alongside existing 'primary' and 'secondary' slots
  • Added new WithLegal component to render OpenJS Foundation copyright text with embedded links and a list of policy links
  • Updated footer navigation configuration with additional OpenJS Foundation links (Terms of Use, Bylaws, Trademark List, Cookie Policy)

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file
File Description
packages/ui-components/src/Containers/Footer/index.tsx Restructured footer layout into two rows, added legal slot support
packages/ui-components/src/Containers/Footer/index.module.css Added styling for new row-based layout and legal section with responsive design
apps/site/components/withLegal.tsx New component to render legal paragraph with rich text links and footer links list
apps/site/components/withFooter.tsx Integrated WithLegal component into footer legal slot
packages/i18n/src/locales/en.json Added legal paragraph text and new footer link translations
apps/site/navigation.json Updated footer links with new OpenJS Foundation policy links
pnpm-workspace.yaml Added @nodejs/doc-kit to onlyBuiltDependencies list

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

<p>
{footerLinks.map((link, index) => (
<span key={link.link}>
<Link href={link.link}>{link.text}</Link>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These links seem to lack any hover styling at all? Why can't we use the same white text w/ background on hover that we had before?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we can, if only there was a way to cascade the styles universally 😄

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

addressed via 6e48d5e

Copy link
Member

@MattIPv4 MattIPv4 Jan 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🤔 Why can't we use <NavItem> for these, rather than <Link>, so they match the old style + the style used in the top nav (and for the social icons)?

The inline links in the first paragraph make sense to use <Link>, but these standalone links I feel we could do something nicer w/ <NavLink>.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this might be visually more interesting. i am a bit reluctant to deviate from the design, however.

image

all like like AS IS

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do think it would look nicer with the proper nav link styling. Might be worth checking with @kj-powell if there are any concerns here? I can't think there would be as all the links are still there in the correct order, we're just changing the visual presentation to be more consistent with the brand of the site.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

agree. i'm fine either way, but also don't want to open the door to too much derivation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

OpenJS Best Practices: Website Updates

3 participants