[ci]: Add workflow to guard against growing bundle size

[hari45678]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• fixes Add CI workflow to guard against increases in the bundle size #2581

Description of the changes

This GH Workflow would go through the following steps:

1. Calculate the actual bundle size by using build directory generated when we run npm run build
2. Save that size to a new_bundle_size.txt file
3. Now fetch the bundle_size.txt file from cache, if present.
4. If cache hits, compare the bundle_size.txt (contains old size) with the new_bundle_size.txt (contains new size).
5. If its more than 2%, fail the CI
6. Else pass it.
7. If cache miss, save the bundle_size.txt to cache
8. Finally, if everything's alright, save the current bundle size file to cache. (but only on pushes to main branch)

How was this change tested?

• Example run: https://github.com/hari45678/jaeger-ui/actions/runs/12724047648/job/35469797958#step:8:27

Checklist

• I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
• I have signed all commits
• I have added unit tests for the new functionality
• I have run lint and test steps successfully
  • for jaeger: make lint test
  • for jaeger-ui: npm run lint and npm run test

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.58%. Comparing base (43d832b) to head (5af0b1b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2586   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.58%   96.58%           
=======================================
  Files         255      255           
  Lines        7732     7732           
  Branches     2009     1996   -13     
=======================================
  Hits         7468     7468           
  Misses        264      264           

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

[hari45678]

Just noticed, we already do a build in Lint and Build workflow. Should I include the bundle_check part in that workflow instead of creating a separate one?

[yurishkuro]

I think it's good to have this one separate, because if it fails we can occasionally override it and still merge (when we deem the size change legitimate), we probably won't make this check required.

[yurishkuro]

It doesn't look like your new workflow ran, perhaps a syntax error

[hari45678]

It doesn't look like your new workflow ran, perhaps a syntax error

It did run https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger-ui/actions/runs/12724148042/job/35470007592?pr=2586

I would try fixing as per the comments though

[hari45678]

Looks like some issue. How is it getting a cache hit? We haven't yet pushed to main branch after merging this PR

[yurishkuro]

looks great!

[hari45678]

There was an issue (cache was getting saved in the PRs) which I just fixed in the latest commit. Actually actions/cache restores the cache but also saves it as a post action. action/cache/restore doesn't do that step.