Skip to content

Conversation

@jpinsonneau
Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Contributor Author

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

@jotak jotak changed the title NETOBSERV-2244 show topology when expectedNodes is set NETOBSERV-2244: show topology when expectedNodes is set May 14, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented May 14, 2025

@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.

Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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
Copy link
Contributor Author

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
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label May 14, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

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
Copy link
Contributor Author

jpinsonneau commented May 14, 2025

Tested and works fine:

image

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
Copy link
Member

jotak commented May 14, 2025

@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
Copy link
Contributor Author

@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
Copy link
Member

Amoghrd commented May 14, 2025

/ok-to-test

@Amoghrd
Copy link
Member

Amoghrd commented May 14, 2025

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 jotak added needs-changes To be added to denote PR needs changes or some questions/comments to be addressed and removed lgtm labels May 26, 2025
@jotak
Copy link
Member

jotak commented May 26, 2025

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

@jpinsonneau
Copy link
Contributor Author

@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
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented May 26, 2025

[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:

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

@jpinsonneau
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label May 26, 2025
@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau added needs-review Tells that the PR needs a review and removed needs-changes To be added to denote PR needs changes or some questions/comments to be addressed labels May 26, 2025
@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau requested a review from jotak May 26, 2025 07:27
@jotak
Copy link
Member

jotak commented May 26, 2025

thanks,
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label May 26, 2025
@jotak jotak removed the needs-review Tells that the PR needs a review label May 26, 2025
@Amoghrd
Copy link
Member

Amoghrd commented May 27, 2025

/ok-to-test

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label May 27, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

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
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented May 27, 2025

@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
Copy link
Member

Amoghrd commented May 27, 2025

/label qe-approved

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the qe-approved QE has approved this pull request label May 27, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented May 27, 2025

@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.

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau merged commit ad827d6 into netobserv:main May 27, 2025
9 of 15 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

jira/valid-reference lgtm ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. qe-approved QE has approved this pull request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants