[MEP][AJO] POC to integrate AJO with MEP

[markpadbe]

We previously did a POC to integrate AJO campaigns into MEP. But in the previous POC, manifests never had more than 1 column and there was no data that could have assisted us in choosing one column over another. This update enables AJO on the 404 page and prepares the code for later AJO adoption across pages.
NOTE: this update does not include integration with the enablePersV2.

Steps to test:

1. navigate to the 404 page in an incognito browser
2. edit the html of any anchor href(I used the adobe icon top left) to point to https://www.stage.adobe.com/products/photoshop/123.html and click on it
   the page should then reload
3. Check the network tab for interact calls. If there are 2, it is likely working and you can continue to step 4 (you could also check the payload response for AJO content)
4. overwrite files in the browser using the 3 files from this PR
5. overwrite the launch file in marketingtech folder with contents of this file: https://assets.adobedtm.com/d4d114c60e50/a0e989131fd5/launch-2c94beadc94f-development.min.js
6. Reload and see the updated content

NOTE: Before this code could work in production, the launch code would also need to be updated in production.

Resolves: MWPW-166638
Note: this was branch from MWPW-149470 and includes updates for that ticket as well.

Test URLs:

• Before: https://main--milo--adobecom.aem.page/?martech=off
• After: https://ajointegration--milo--adobecom.aem.page/?martech=off

[aem-code-sync]

Hello, I'm the AEM Code Sync Bot and I will run some actions to deploy your branch and validate page speed.
In case there are problems, just click a checkbox below to rerun the respective action.

• Re-run PSI checks
• Re-sync branch

Commits

• aca09e6 ✅ (latest)
• 147b7db ✅
• 1ac0865 ✅
• 4bf24be ✅
• e6a3e2e ✅
• 453306d ✅
• 6d9e9ef ✅

[aem-code-sync]

	Page	Scores	Audits	Google
📱	/?martech=off
🖥️	/?martech=off

[JasonHowellSlavin]

Any tests that can be updated?

[JasonHowellSlavin]

Some optional chaining could make this a bit more robust from errors, may not be necessary though:
config.mep?.ajoEnabled

[markpadbe]

The config.mep is defined near the top of the init function, so this should be safe. If not, we would probably want to update all of the existing references to config.mep in the file.

[JasonHowellSlavin]

is there another way to do this? I am not particularly fond of having a hardcoded string for a path in the utils/utils.js file that is used by all consumers.

For instance, you could author custom page metadata within the metadatablock on a page by page basis to allow multiple POC pages

const isPOC = (document.title === '404' && getMetadata('ajoPoc'));

[markpadbe]

hi @JasonHowellSlavin, as far as I know, the only way to impact the metadata for the 404 page is by updating the 404.html file via a code change. I tried authoring the metadata for the fragment that gets pulled in but that doesn't get applied to the page.

[vgoodric]

@markpadbe so the title check for 404 makes sense, but I don't think we want to lock it to the 1 URL. It should work on all 404 pages right?

[markpadbe]

hi @vivgoodrich, the launch code that triggers the related propositionFetch call as of this week is targeting the /products/photoshop/123.html page. That could change, but it won't work on other pages unless that is also updated.

[vgoodric]

I hear ya, but I think we want the POC to be able to work on more pages. Otherwise we'll have to do a PR later just to enable this later.

[markpadbe]

Sure, but I've left open the option to test ajo on other pages by including including getMepEnablement('ajo') on line 30. It won't work on the 404 page because there isn't a way (that I'm aware of) to update the metadata on that page without a code update, but it would work on other pages.

[JasonHowellSlavin]

Would a queryParam or hashParam work here and allow testing on all types of 404 pages? Or is there a reason that will not work as well?

[markpadbe]

@JasonHowellSlavin, I just got the ok to require a queryParam for the POC and I've updated the code. thanks.

[github-actions]

This pull request is not passing all required checks. Please see this discussion for information on how to get all checks passing. Inconsistent checks can be manually retried. If a test absolutely can not pass for a good reason, please add a comment with an explanation to the PR.