fix: Render Cloud Config Date params as dates after refresh

[dblythy]

Closes #2566

A Cloud Config parameter of type Date renders correctly right after it is created, but after a page refresh it shows the raw wire object {"__type":"Date","iso":"..."} instead of a date.

Cause: config values are fetched via GET /config and stored without decoding, so a Date arrives as {__type:'Date', iso}. Config#tableData rehydrated File and GeoPoint wire objects back into real instances but had no branch for Date, so the value failed the isDate check and fell through to JSON.stringify. It looked correct before a refresh only because the local store keeps the original Date until the next fetch.

Fix: a small lib/decodeConfigValue helper rehydrates File/GeoPoint/Date wire objects, applied both in tableData (table render) and in the edit-modal refetch path (which read the raw value and would otherwise feed a non-Date into the date picker).

Before

Refresh shows the Date param as an Object.

After

Refresh shows the Date param as a date.

Opening the editor shows a populated date picker (this path is also fixed by decoding the refetched value):

Regression: File/GeoPoint/String/Number render and edit unchanged (GeoPoint editor shown):

Covered by a unit test (src/lib/tests/decodeConfigValue.test.js). The broader date-input UX ideas from the issue (unified text input, optional calendar picker, ISO placeholder) are left as a follow-up.

[parse-github-assistant]

I will reformat the title to use the proper commit message syntax.

[parse-github-assistant]

🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request! We appreciate your effort in improving the project. Please let us know once your pull request is ready for review.

Tip

• Keep pull requests small. Large PRs will be rejected. Break complex features into smaller, incremental PRs.
• Use Test Driven Development. Write failing tests before implementing functionality. Ensure tests pass.
• Group code into logical blocks. Add a short comment before each block to explain its purpose.
• We offer conceptual guidance. Coding is up to you. PRs must be merge-ready for human review.
• Our review focuses on concept, not quality. PRs with code issues will be rejected. Use an AI agent.
• Human review time is precious. Avoid review ping-pong. Inspect and test your AI-generated code.

Note

Please respond to review comments from AI agents just like you would to comments from a human reviewer. Let the reviewer resolve their own comments, unless they have reviewed and accepted your commit, or agreed with your explanation for why the feedback was incorrect.

Caution

Pull requests must be written using an AI agent with human supervision. Pull requests written entirely by a human will likely be rejected, because of lower code quality, higher review effort and the higher risk of introducing bugs. Please note that AI review comments on this pull request alone do not satisfy this requirement. Our CI and AI review are safeguards, not development tools. If many issues are flagged, rethink your development approach. Invest more effort in planning and design rather than using review cycles to fix low-quality code.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in: 15 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 908a753f-2354-4fbb-9111-6effe09b0519

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9db24be and 55e7c94.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• src/dashboard/Data/Config/Config.react.js
• src/lib/decodeConfigValue.js
• src/lib/tests/decodeConfigValue.test.js

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

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