NETOBSERV-2244: show topology when expectedNodes is set

[jpinsonneau]

Description

Fix empty UDN's filtering not working as expected

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

[jpinsonneau]

That should be enough to fix the issue (not tested yet)

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jpinsonneau: This pull request references NETOBSERV-2244 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.20.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Fix empty UDN's filtering not working as expected

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[jotak]

I don't get the logic
But if that works, ok! :-)
perhaps I just don't have enough of my morning coffee
/lgtm
(tests required)

[jpinsonneau]

I don't get the logic But if that works, ok! :-) perhaps I just don't have enough of my morning coffee /lgtm (tests required)

The use case here is:

• user goes into topology
• set scope to network
• check "display empty"
• finally filter on an empty udn

Previously, the view was showing an empty message since the returned metrics are empty despite the show empty is still checked and empty udns are still provided
With this change, the view should keep showing the topology since empty items are available

Gonna test that today 😉

[jpinsonneau]

/retest

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin:9bc78ed

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=9bc78ed make set-plugin-image

[jpinsonneau]

Tested and works fine:

The only downside of this approach is that the UI is going to show all the empty UDNs even when you filter on network names 🤔

I may add an exception for that case if you feel it's necessary but it could become hard to maintain in future if we implement the same "show empty" behavior on other scopes.
For now, the filtered resource(s) are highlighted in the view which is good enough to me.

WDYT ?

[jotak]

@jpinsonneau the "display empty" checkbox is enabled by default, right? I think that would be my concern, users who did not explicitly wanted to show empty items, they would still see them regardless of what they filter.
If that wasn't enabled by default, that wouldn't be a problem IMO because only user who purposely want to see empty items would be "affected"

[jpinsonneau]

@jpinsonneau the "display empty" checkbox is enabled by default, right? I think that would be my concern, users who did not explicitly wanted to show empty items, they would still see them regardless of what they filter. If that wasn't enabled by default, that wouldn't be a problem IMO because only user who purposely want to see empty items would be "affected"

Yes we can move if to false by default if you prefer.

[Amoghrd]

/ok-to-test

[Amoghrd]

Filtering on empty UDN now works, but shows all empty UDN's irrespective of whats being filtered.

+1 to Joel's comment. Its better to keep Show Empty unchecked on default and the above scenario only affects customers who wants to see empty UDN's

[jotak]

@jpinsonneau are we ok to implement the opposite default as mentioned?

[jpinsonneau]

@jpinsonneau are we ok to implement the opposite default as mentioned?

sure, done in d44a03e

You will need to clear your local storage to see the diff

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from jotak. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[jpinsonneau]

/retest

[jotak]

thanks,
/lgtm

[Amoghrd]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin:1b712a9

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=1b712a9 make set-plugin-image

[openshift-ci]

@jpinsonneau: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/qe-e2e-console-tests	d44a03e	link	false	/test qe-e2e-console-tests
ci/prow/plugin-cypress	d44a03e	link	true	/test plugin-cypress

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[Amoghrd]

/label qe-approved

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jpinsonneau: This pull request references NETOBSERV-2244 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.20.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Fix empty UDN's filtering not working as expected

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.