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

Search by Owner on Archived + Search Version Level by keyword #3325

Merged

Conversation

YuliaKrimerman
Copy link
Contributor

@YuliaKrimerman YuliaKrimerman commented Oct 11, 2024

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHOAIENG-14022
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHOAIENG-13056

Description

RHOAIENG-14022 : See screenshot showing that the filer is now working in Archived Models by Owner - Results when there is a match vs no results when not match
Screenshot 2024-10-11 at 10 39 31 AM
Screenshot 2024-10-11 at 10 39 38 AM
RHOAIENG-13056 See screenshot showing that a model that has a version coming back by that keyword and is showing up by that version label even on the model level search by Keyword
Untitled
Screenshot 2024-10-08 at 1 59 24 PM

How Has This Been Tested?

On the UI

Test Impact

Added tests for the hook and fixed other tests

Request review criteria:

Self checklist (all need to be checked):

  • The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work
  • 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.

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

@mturley
Copy link
Contributor

mturley commented Oct 11, 2024

/retest

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 11, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.11765% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.90%. Comparing base (65ddbb9) to head (ddb4479).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...egisteredModelsArchive/RegisteredModelsArchive.tsx 71.42% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3325      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.73%   84.90%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files        1309     1310       +1     
  Lines       29319    29353      +34     
  Branches     7981     8009      +28     
==========================================
+ Hits        24843    24922      +79     
+ Misses       4476     4431      -45     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...oncepts/modelRegistry/apiHooks/useModelVersions.ts 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../src/pages/modelRegistry/screens/ModelRegistry.tsx 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...reens/RegisteredModels/RegisteredModelListView.tsx 80.00% <100.00%> (+0.58%) ⬆️
...dModelsArchive/RegisteredModelsArchiveListView.tsx 75.00% <100.00%> (+1.08%) ⬆️
frontend/src/pages/modelRegistry/screens/utils.ts 92.68% <100.00%> (+0.68%) ⬆️
...egisteredModelsArchive/RegisteredModelsArchive.tsx 85.71% <71.42%> (-14.29%) ⬇️

... and 46 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 65ddbb9...ddb4479. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@mturley mturley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tested locally, LGTM, thanks @YuliaKrimerman

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 11, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mturley

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 de9b933 into opendatahub-io:main Oct 11, 2024
8 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.

2 participants