-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 667
create a utility and component for traffic connector #4022
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
Conversation
96b9244 to
0c38cf5
Compare
|
/kind feature cc @openshift/team-devconsole-ux |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So consts for other connectors doesnt have an edge suffix, for consistency either add edge suffix in all connectors or remove it from this one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not use the traffic data type here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we use types instead of any?
e4ed0ab to
432ed1b
Compare
|
/lgtm |
|
For now I think it is okay to use the mock data and later when we have the kiali api refactor the code to use it. cc: @christianvogt |
andrewballantyne
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, needs tests. @sahil143 please log a task in JIRA, assign it to yourself, and put it in the next sprint (179). You'll need to write tests next week.
|
Not sure how to test the connector part yet; will look to follow https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ODC-2505 shortly. |
andrewballantyne
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me minus the overlapping connectors. We'll have to make sure we show this to UX and get feedback...
I'm approving this PR because it looks good to me and is a blocker for @divyanshiGupta 's PR.
@sahil143 Please log that Unit Test ticket when JIRA comes back up.
432ed1b to
7327bea
Compare
andrewballantyne
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some changes needed. You can log a ticket and address these later; nothing is critical.
A new test, and a use of a constant over a magic string.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You modified the output here and it didn't fail a test 😕 I think we need to write a test for this condition too.. otherwise we'll not catch a break if this violates the status quo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even if this condition is not true it doesn't affect the edges array. it's just that Traffic connector will be not be added to the edges array.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, doh - right it wouldn't fail pre-existing tests. My brain is half functioning today 😆 But we still need to write a test for if it is truthy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes I did for falsy
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm confused by this comment:
yes I did for falsy
This didn't exist during my last test, did it? I'm 99% I didn't see the falsy test lol.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, there wasn't any test to check the condition. But now I added for both falsy and truthy. 😉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe there is a type for this (I didn't know this when previously reviewing)...
| nodes.filter(({ data }) => data.nodeType === 'workload'); | |
| nodes.filter(({ data }) => data.nodeType === TYPE_WORKLOAD); |
From frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/topology/const.ts
9bfdbcc to
1ee1752
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: andrewballantyne, divyanshiGupta, karthikjeeyar, sahil143 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
25 similar comments
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
Commit from this PR is already merged in master through PR #4026. Closing this. |
|
e2e tests were just not passing here... so we took a two prong approach and it worked out 😄 |


ODC-story: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ODC-2461
This Pr adds the traffic connector and is based on the mock data. To test this PR locally run below cmds and select the
bookinfonamespace