regression: RelativeUrlSettingInput not stretching filling the available width

[nazabucciarelli]

Proposed changes (including videos or screenshots)

Root cause: v0.79.1 (RocketChat/fuselage#2024) added width: 0 to the shared .rcx-input-box rule. A definite width disables the cross‑axis stretch of a flex column item, so the input stops growing to the container width and falls back to min-width: 8rem. In v0.79.0 and earlier the rule had no width, so it stretched correctly.

Where it shows: in Rocket.Chat admin settings, relativeUrl settings (e.g. the OAuth "Callback URL" fields) render a readonly UrlInput directly inside a Field, and appears collapsed to ~128px with the URL truncated, while sibling text/secret fields (which sit inside a FieldRow) look fine.

Suggested fix: Wrapping the <UrlInput> component within a <FieldRow> component, as with every other setting

Issue(s)

CORE-2348 [Regression] OAuth callback URL fields render too narrow in admin settings

Steps to test or reproduce

Further comments

Summary by CodeRabbit

• UI Improvements
  • Adjusted the layout of the relative URL setting input so the URL field now appears in its own row, improving spacing and readability in admin settings.
  • Preserved existing behavior for editing, autocomplete, and URL handling.

[dionisio-bot]

Looks like this PR is ready to merge! 🎉
If you have any trouble, please check the PR guidelines

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: da035a8

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 1 file

_{Re-trigger cubic}

[dougfabris]

LGTM!

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 6f090745-18d5-45ca-a55a-520a9e2dfa88

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5857fb0 and da035a8.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• apps/meteor/client/views/admin/settings/Setting/inputs/RelativeUrlSettingInput.tsx

📜 Recent review details

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout. (2)

• GitHub Check: 📦 Build Packages
• GitHub Check: Hacktron Security Check

⚠️ CI failures not shown inline (1)

GitHub Check: Dionisio QA: Some checks did not pass

Conclusion: failure

View job details

**Conclusion:** failure
### Steps
- ✅ **No merge conflicts**
- ❌ **QA assured** — This PR is missing the 'stat: QA assured' label
- ✅ **Mergeable**
- ✅ **Has milestone or project**
- ✅ **Valid PR title**
- ✅ **Correct target version**

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (1)

**/*.{ts,tsx,js}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.cursor/rules/playwright.mdc)

**/*.{ts,tsx,js}: Write concise, technical TypeScript/JavaScript with accurate typing in Playwright tests
Avoid code comments in the implementation

Files:

• apps/meteor/client/views/admin/settings/Setting/inputs/RelativeUrlSettingInput.tsx

🧠 Learnings (2)

📚 Learning: 2026-03-27T14:52:56.865Z

Learnt from: dougfabris
Repo: RocketChat/Rocket.Chat PR: 39892
File: apps/meteor/client/views/room/contextualBar/Threads/Thread.tsx:150-155
Timestamp: 2026-03-27T14:52:56.865Z
Learning: In Rocket.Chat, there are two different `ModalBackdrop` components with different prop APIs. During review, confirm the import source: (1) `rocket.chat/fuselage` `ModalBackdrop` uses `ModalBackdropProps` based on `BoxProps` (so it supports `onClick` and other Box/DOM props) and does not have an `onDismiss` prop; (2) `rocket.chat/ui-client` `ModalBackdrop` uses a narrower props interface like `{ children?: ReactNode; onDismiss?: () => void }` and handles Escape keypress and outside mouse-up, and it does not forward arbitrary DOM props such as `onClick`. Flag mismatched props (e.g., `onDismiss` passed to the fuselage component or `onClick` passed to the ui-client component) and ensure the usage matches the correct component being imported.

Applied to files:

• apps/meteor/client/views/admin/settings/Setting/inputs/RelativeUrlSettingInput.tsx

📚 Learning: 2026-05-06T12:21:44.083Z

Learnt from: juliajforesti
Repo: RocketChat/Rocket.Chat PR: 40256
File: apps/meteor/client/components/CreateDiscussion/CreateDiscussion.tsx:121-149
Timestamp: 2026-05-06T12:21:44.083Z
Learning: Field wrappers in rocket.chat/fuselage-forms (Field, FieldLabel, FieldRow, FieldError, FieldHint) auto-create htmlFor/id associations, aria-describedby, and role="alert" for errors. Do not manually set htmlFor, id, aria-describedby, or role attributes when using these wrappers. This automatic wiring does not apply to plain rocket.chat/fuselage components, which require explicit ID wiring per the accessibility docs. In code reviews, prefer using fuselage-forms wrappers for form fields and verify there is no unnecessary manual ID/aria wiring in files that use these wrappers. If a component uses plain fuselage components, ensure proper id wiring as per docs.

Applied to files:

• apps/meteor/client/views/admin/settings/Setting/inputs/RelativeUrlSettingInput.tsx

🔇 Additional comments (1)

apps/meteor/client/views/admin/settings/Setting/inputs/RelativeUrlSettingInput.tsx (1)

38-48: LGTM!

---

Walkthrough

In RelativeUrlSettingInput, the UrlInput component is now wrapped in its own FieldRow element. No props, handlers, or exported entities were changed.

Changes

RelativeUrlSettingInput Layout Fix

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Wrap UrlInput in FieldRow apps/meteor/client/views/admin/settings/Setting/inputs/RelativeUrlSettingInput.tsx	UrlInput is now nested inside a second FieldRow within the Field, separate from the existing label/reset FieldRow.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Suggested labels

type: bug

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly describes the main regression and the affected setting component.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Warning

Review ran into problems

🔥 Problems

Errors were encountered while retrieving linked issues.

Errors (1)

• CORE-2348: Request failed with status code 401

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (release-8.6.0@5857fb0). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             release-8.6.0   #41105   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage                 ?   70.17%           
================================================
  Files                    ?     3371           
  Lines                    ?   130421           
  Branches                 ?    22629           
================================================
  Hits                     ?    91517           
  Misses                   ?    35582           
  Partials                 ?     3322           

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	59.44% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-api	47.03% <ø> (?)
unit	70.11% <0.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.