Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add error state when pipeline version is deleted #2915

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 10, 2024

Conversation

ppadti
Copy link
Contributor

@ppadti ppadti commented Jun 14, 2024

Closes: RHOAIENG-6683

Description

This PR aims to add error state in pipeline run details page when pipeline version is deleted.

Screenshot from 2024-07-03 21-14-05

Screenshot from 2024-07-02 12-43-39

Screenshot from 2024-07-03 21-14-12

How Has This Been Tested?

  1. create a pipeline
  2. create a run for that.
  3. delete pipeline version of that run.
  4. From Experiments and run page open pipeline run details page.
  5. It will show the error state on run graph and pipeline spec tab. Also in details tab, "No pipeline version" will be mentioned for pipeline version property.

Test Impact

Added cypress test.

Request review criteria:

Self checklist (all need to be checked):

  • The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work
  • Commits have been squashed into descriptive, self-contained units of work (e.g. 'WIP' and 'Implements feedback' style messages have been removed)
  • Testing instructions have been added in the PR body (for PRs involving changes that are not immediately obvious).
  • The developer has added tests or explained why testing cannot be added (unit or cypress tests for related changes)

If you have UI changes:

  • Included any necessary screenshots or gifs if it was a UI change.
  • Included tags to the UX team if it was a UI/UX change (find relevant UX in the SMEs section).

After the PR is posted & before it merges:

  • The developer has tested their solution on a cluster by using the image produced by the PR to main

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from alexcreasy and mturley June 14, 2024 12:39
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase PR needs to be rebased label Jun 14, 2024
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase PR needs to be rebased label Jun 19, 2024
@ppadti
Copy link
Contributor Author

ppadti commented Jun 20, 2024

/retest

@ppadti ppadti force-pushed the RHOAIENG-6683 branch 2 times, most recently from e38bc49 to 5c4db9f Compare June 20, 2024 08:28
@ppadti
Copy link
Contributor Author

ppadti commented Jun 20, 2024

cc @yannnz

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 20, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.56%. Comparing base (520c92a) to head (8499279).
Report is 56 commits behind head on main.

Current head 8499279 differs from pull request most recent head a242515

Please upload reports for the commit a242515 to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2915      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.52%   78.56%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files        1139     1139              
  Lines       24171    24176       +5     
  Branches     6099     6101       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        18980    18994      +14     
+ Misses       5191     5182       -9     
Files Coverage Δ
...ipelinesDetails/pipelineRun/PipelineRunDetails.tsx 82.14% <100.00%> (+1.78%) ⬆️
...linesDetails/pipelineRun/PipelineRunTabDetails.tsx 95.23% <100.00%> (+0.50%) ⬆️
...rontend/src/concepts/topology/PipelineTopology.tsx 95.45% <100.00%> (+0.71%) ⬆️

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 520c92a...a242515. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@dpanshug dpanshug left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ApplicationsPage is a global component, so rather than adding Pipeline specific props to it, you should handle the versionLoaded condition inside the PipelineRunDetails.
See the suggestions below to implement this.

Copy link
Contributor

@dpanshug dpanshug left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just a small change

@dpanshug
Copy link
Contributor

After this if we redirect to the runs of a deleted pipeline version, we see the loading state of the pipeline in the breadcrumb. How should we handle this? @Gkrumbach07 @yannnz
Screenshot 2024-06-27 at 3 50 38 PM

@yannnz
Copy link

yannnz commented Jun 28, 2024

@dpanshug I think this is a bug. We don't need to show pipeline name in the breadcrumb, since the path to this page is from Selected Experiment to this selected Run. I remeber @DaoDaoNoCode is working on fix it.

@ppadti
Copy link
Contributor Author

ppadti commented Jun 28, 2024

Hi @ppadti , the Pipeline spec tab has been missed.

@Gkrumbach07 to display Pipeline spec tab, we need to have version. https://github.com/opendatahub-io/odh-dashboard/blob/main/frontend/src/concepts/pipelines/content/pipelinesDetails/pipelineRun/PipelineRunDetails.tsx#L173
Is it okay if we don't display that when the pipeline version is deleted or you want me to change the condition there.

@ppadti ppadti requested a review from Gkrumbach07 June 28, 2024 13:55
@yannnz
Copy link

yannnz commented Jul 2, 2024

@ppadti I would suggest to follow the same design pattern for Run graph tab since we are not able to get the data of the spec for a deleted pipeline: displaying error message as the statement.

@yannnz
Copy link

yannnz commented Jul 2, 2024

Hi @kaedward , could you help to review the error state for the Pipeline spec tab? In the mock, I just updated the "Run pipeline graph" to "Run pipeline spec".
Screenshot 2024-07-02 at 23 16 55

@kaedward
Copy link

kaedward commented Jul 3, 2024

@yannnz, I think I made a suggestion for the run graph message, but reading it back now, I don't think it's super clear because "error loading BLANK" implies that the info can be loaded if an action is taken. If the item has been deleted, the info will never be available to load. So what do you think of these alternate messages?

"Pipeline run graph unavailable
The pipeline version that this run graph belongs to has been deleted."

"Pipeline spec unavailable
The pipeline version that this pipeline spec belongs to has been deleted."

@yannnz
Copy link

yannnz commented Jul 3, 2024

Thanks @kaedward , sounds good to me.

@yannnz, I think I made a suggestion for the run graph message, but reading it back now, I don't think it's super clear because "error loading BLANK" implies that the info can be loaded if an action is taken. If the item has been deleted, the info will never be available to load. So what do you think of these alternate messages?

"Pipeline run graph unavailable The pipeline version that this run graph belongs to has been deleted."

"Pipeline spec unavailable The pipeline version that this pipeline spec belongs to has been deleted."

@ppadti
Copy link
Contributor Author

ppadti commented Jul 3, 2024

Thanks @kaedward , sounds good to me.

@yannnz, I think I made a suggestion for the run graph message, but reading it back now, I don't think it's super clear because "error loading BLANK" implies that the info can be loaded if an action is taken. If the item has been deleted, the info will never be available to load. So what do you think of these alternate messages?
"Pipeline run graph unavailable The pipeline version that this run graph belongs to has been deleted."
"Pipeline spec unavailable The pipeline version that this pipeline spec belongs to has been deleted."

thanks @kaedward @yannnz

@ppadti
Copy link
Contributor Author

ppadti commented Jul 3, 2024

@yannnz I have updated the PR and screenshots. Please take a look.

@yannnz
Copy link

yannnz commented Jul 4, 2024

Looks good to me.

Copy link
Contributor

@dpanshug dpanshug left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Works fine, i can see the error message when the version is deleted.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jul 4, 2024
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm label Jul 8, 2024
@Gkrumbach07
Copy link
Member

this looks good

/approve

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved label Jul 9, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@dpanshug dpanshug left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jul 10, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 10, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dpanshug, Gkrumbach07

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 3e07400 into opendatahub-io:main Jul 10, 2024
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants