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

fix: SearchDetails Pivot bug [ET-632] #9656

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 16, 2024
Merged

fix: SearchDetails Pivot bug [ET-632] #9656

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 16, 2024

Conversation

johnkim-det
Copy link
Contributor

@johnkim-det johnkim-det commented Jul 15, 2024

Ticket

ET-632

Description

Refreshing Search Details page displays Pivot options with an incorrect left offset:
Screenshot 2024-07-15 at 3 16 33 PM

Test Plan

Refresh a Search Details page. Should display all Pivot options in correct position, without cutting off or obscuring any of them:

Screenshot 2024-07-15 at 3 16 40 PM

Checklist

  • Changes have been manually QA'd
  • New features have been approved by the corresponding PM
  • User-facing API changes have the "User-facing API Change" label
  • Release notes have been added as a separate file under docs/release-notes/
    See Release Note for details.
  • Licenses have been included for new code which was copied and/or modified from any external code

Copy link

netlify bot commented Jul 15, 2024

Deploy Preview for determined-ui ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 087a93a
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/determined-ui/deploys/66958692c40c770008393b8d
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-9656--determined-ui.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

Copy link
Contributor

@keita-determined keita-determined left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

\o/

@keita-determined
Copy link
Contributor

the unit test failed

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 15, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 51 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 48.44%. Comparing base (0494cdf) to head (087a93a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9656      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   53.21%   48.44%   -4.78%     
==========================================
  Files        1254      931     -323     
  Lines      152531   123395   -29136     
  Branches     3240     3216      -24     
==========================================
- Hits        81171    59777   -21394     
+ Misses      71209    63466    -7743     
- Partials      151      152       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
harness ?
web 51.16% <0.00%> (-0.27%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Coverage Δ
webui/react/src/pages/SearchDetails.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (-76.80%) ⬇️

... and 324 files with indirect coverage changes

@keita-determined
Copy link
Contributor

probably its a good idea to write the reason why removing the test file.

@johnkim-det
Copy link
Contributor Author

fixing this bug revealed that the test cases were only passing in a situation where there was no experiment fetched. When we do have an experiment, tests then need to correctly render FlatRuns, ExperimentCodeViewer, Notes, Page, and ExperimentDetailsHeader, in addition to, of course, Pivot, which is the only thing really being tested by the existing test case. There are errors for several of those components, which could be addressed in SearchDetails.test.tsx... But it feels like making sure all of that works together is best handled by an e2e test? And also that unit tests for the components used by the pages would be more appropriate than trying to "unit test" the entire page.

created ET-634 and ET-635 to capture additional unit testing.

@johnkim-det johnkim-det merged commit c3e5211 into main Jul 16, 2024
85 of 98 checks passed
@johnkim-det johnkim-det deleted the ET-632 branch July 16, 2024 20:46
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