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 experiment selector to NewRun #486

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Dec 7, 2018

Conversation

rileyjbauer
Copy link
Contributor

@rileyjbauer rileyjbauer commented Dec 6, 2018

This is the first part of fixing #53 and #256


This change is Reviewable

@rileyjbauer rileyjbauer force-pushed the add-experiment-selector branch from 84a7c51 to 55b6504 Compare December 6, 2018 19:23
@rileyjbauer rileyjbauer changed the title [WIP] - Add experiment selector Add experiment selector to NewRun Dec 6, 2018
</div>
)}
<div>
<div>This run will be associated with the following experiment</div>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we change this message? Maybe "Select this run's experiment"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe the description should be removed entirely? We don't say anything specific for the other fields

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd vote to keep it, since the UI still doesn't explain what experiments are anywhere, it's likely the least understood concept on that form.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If that's the case, then I think we should keep the original wording as it's more explanatory

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

SGTM.

@rileyjbauer
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test kubeflow-pipeline-e2e-test

Copy link
Contributor

@yebrahim yebrahim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
Only minor comments left.


it('displays resource selector', async () => {
const props = generateProps();
props.columns = selectorColumns;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These three lines are redundant, no?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same below.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here yeah. It made sense when the resources were still explicitly referenced. Removed below as well, except for the resource itself so one can see how it changes

columns={this.experimentSelectorColumns}
emptyMessage='No experiments found. Create an experiment and then try again.'
initialSortColumn={ExperimentSortKeys.CREATED_AT}
resourceToRow={this._resourceToRow}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If both components use the same method, why not integrate it for now, until we need to separate it out?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Very good point

@rileyjbauer rileyjbauer force-pushed the add-experiment-selector branch from c74616f to ff17bf3 Compare December 7, 2018 18:16
@rileyjbauer rileyjbauer force-pushed the add-experiment-selector branch from 90d951b to 5cea0cd Compare December 7, 2018 21:00
Copy link
Contributor

@yebrahim yebrahim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: yebrahim

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

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: yebrahim

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 114c99d into kubeflow:master Dec 7, 2018
neuromage pushed a commit to neuromage/pipelines that referenced this pull request Dec 22, 2018
* Adds an experiment selector to the new run page. Needs tests

* Adds an experiment selector to the new run page. Needs tests

* Adds tests for the new experiment selector in NewRun

* Rename PipelineSelector -> ResourceSelector since it handles experiments as well

* Makes ResourceSelector more abstract. No longer coupled to experiments and pipelines

* PR comments, NewRun clean-up

* Moves resourceToRow function into ResourceSelector

* Fix e2e test
@rileyjbauer rileyjbauer deleted the add-experiment-selector branch May 6, 2019 22:15
Linchin pushed a commit to Linchin/pipelines that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2023
* code complete

* reduce forwarding rule max age

* use operation resource

* fix resource()

* use max proxy age

* move down cleanup_certificate

* add check for pending targetHTTPproxy ops

* update how to get domain

* fix bug

* update get_ssl_certificate_domain()
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.

3 participants