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

✨ Expose pricing plans #4828

Merged

Conversation

odeimaiz
Copy link
Member

@odeimaiz odeimaiz commented Oct 4, 2023

What do these changes do?

This PR implements the frontend part for #4812

The frontend elements stay more or the same (some extra information about the plan itself is required), but the names and the costs per unit are provided by the backend.

PricongPlans

Related issue/s

related to ITISFoundation/osparc-issues#922

How to test

DevOps Checklist

@odeimaiz odeimaiz added a:frontend issue affecting the front-end (area group) changelog:✨new-feature labels Oct 4, 2023
@odeimaiz odeimaiz added this to the the nameless milestone Oct 4, 2023
@odeimaiz odeimaiz self-assigned this Oct 4, 2023
@odeimaiz odeimaiz marked this pull request as ready for review October 4, 2023 11:45
Copy link
Member

@pcrespov pcrespov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cool! Some suggestions

  1. wallet credits are displayed as "XX Credits" while the pricing plan just "XX". I would add "XX Credits/hour"
  2. wallet credits is highlighted while princing plan is not. I would stress more the pricing plan than the wallet remaining credits (or at least give them the same importance).

@odeimaiz
Copy link
Member Author

odeimaiz commented Oct 4, 2023

  1. wallet credits are displayed as "XX Credits" while the pricing plan just "XX". I would add "XX Credits/hour"

In order to save some space, the short version doesn't show the unit while the Advanced does.

  1. wallet credits is highlighted while princing plan is not. I would stress more the pricing plan than the wallet remaining credits (or at least give them the same importance).

👍

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Oct 5, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@codeclimate
Copy link

codeclimate bot commented Oct 5, 2023

Code Climate has analyzed commit 40c9683 and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

View more on Code Climate.

Copy link
Contributor

@ignapas ignapas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👀
Sorry, what is the difference between advanced and not advanced besides the buttons having different size? Something that will come in the future?

Copy link
Collaborator

@elisabettai elisabettai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As IP said, I don't understand for the moment the "Advanced" view vs. the normal one.

If the normal one is don't stress the user about the "price", then I'd just show "SMALL", "MEDIUM", "LARGE"

@odeimaiz odeimaiz merged commit 0a7fbd7 into ITISFoundation:master Oct 5, 2023
@odeimaiz
Copy link
Member Author

odeimaiz commented Oct 5, 2023

@ignapas @elisabettai
It shows the Tier's extra information. As you might remember, this info used to be mocked in the frontend (number of CPUs, GPU...), now it shows what the backed provides... hopefully it will soon be populated.

@odeimaiz odeimaiz deleted the feature/connect-pricing-plans branch October 5, 2023 12:34
@matusdrobuliak66 matusdrobuliak66 mentioned this pull request Oct 20, 2023
36 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
a:frontend issue affecting the front-end (area group)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants