Revert "Onboarding: Remove the onboarding specific check for subheader"

[spen]

Reverts #33470

Since #33470 one of our e2e tests has been failing and was .skipped in #33517.
For the time being, I'm rolling back #33470 until the onboarding-blog flow is made redundant and removed.

[matticbot]

Test live: https://calypso.live/?branch=revert-33470-update/onboarding-copy-changes-spen--use-onboarding-copy-in-domains

[matticbot]

Here is how your PR affects size of JS and CSS bundles shipped to the user's browser:

Sections (~1130 bytes removed 📉)

name             parsed_size           gzip_size
stats                 -226 B  (-0.0%)      -46 B  (-0.0%)
signup                -226 B  (-0.1%)      -52 B  (-0.1%)
jetpack-connect       -226 B  (-0.0%)      -46 B  (-0.0%)
checkout              -226 B  (-0.0%)      -52 B  (-0.0%)
checklist             -226 B  (-0.2%)      -48 B  (-0.2%)

Sections contain code specific for a given set of routes. Is downloaded and parsed only when a particular route is navigated to.

Async-loaded Components (~5 bytes removed 📉)

name                             parsed_size           gzip_size
async-load-blocks-inline-help         -226 B  (-0.3%)      -51 B  (-0.3%)
async-load-signup-steps-domains       +221 B  (+0.1%)     +101 B  (+0.2%)

React components that are loaded lazily, when a certain part of UI is displayed for the first time.

Legend

What is parsed and gzip size?

Parsed Size: Uncompressed size of the JS and CSS files. This much code needs to be parsed and stored in memory.
Gzip Size: Compressed size of the JS and CSS files. This much data needs to be downloaded over network.

Generated by performance advisor bot at iscalypsofastyet.com.

[ramonjd]

LGTM

[spen]

Hi @Stojdza - Were you able to confirm that the issue mentioned here was fixed by this revert?

I made some attempts to investigate and fix the underlying issue and struggled to do so.
It looks like the issue comes about because we 'inject' an entry for a survey step in to the signup progress state when we give the vertical URL param, then when we switch to a forked flow (onboarding-blog, or ecommerce-onboarding for instance) we're comparing the step names and the indexes of the steps of the current progress state and the incoming flow... because that survey step is sort of show-horned in and doesn't naturally appear in either the old flow, or the new flow our filtering logic returns an empty array.

Sooo, to cut a long story short - I think that's our issue, rather than the copy changes made in #33470 - but I'm interested to hear from you before I reinstate those changes again :)

[Stojdza]

Hi @spen! The test is passing after revert.

I ran it locally and it's failing on this page:

but it's because the test was disabled a few weeks ago and it wasn't updated meanwhile to cover this page (other tests were updated).

Would you mind that I enable test again so you can run it with the rest of them against your fix?