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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

NETOBSERV-1580: update frontend config for CLI #819

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 12, 2024
Merged

NETOBSERV-1580: update frontend config for CLI #819

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 12, 2024

Conversation

jpinsonneau
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Simple config update to make CLI compatible

  • added missing fields references when multiple fields were involved (console plugin takes the array in priority)
  • added missing drop related fields (these will not be shown by default but selectable in the plugin)

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 jpinsonneau mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2024
Merged
10 tasks
jpinsonneau
jpinsonneau commented Oct 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
controllers/consoleplugin/config/static-frontend-config.yaml
Comment on lines +478 to +512
- id: PktDropBytes
name: Dropped Bytes
tooltip: The total aggregated number of bytes dropped.
field: PktDropBytes
default: false
width: 5
feature: pktDrop
- id: PktDropPackets
name: Dropped Packets
tooltip: The total aggregated number of packets dropped.
field: PktDropPackets
default: false
width: 5
feature: pktDrop
- id: PktDropLatestState
name: Drop State
tooltip: TCP state on last dropped packet.
field: PktDropLatestState
default: false
width: 10
feature: pktDrop
- id: PktDropLatestDropCause
name: Drop Cause
tooltip: TCP state on last dropped packet.
field: PktDropLatestDropCause
default: false
width: 10
feature: pktDrop
- id: PktDropLatestFlags
name: Drop Flags
tooltip: TCP flags on last dropped packet.
field: PktDropLatestFlags
default: false
width: 10
feature: pktDrop
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@msherif1234 FYI you asked for this earlier 👼

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2024
Merged
10 tasks
jotak
jotak reviewed Oct 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
controllers/consoleplugin/config/static-frontend-config.yaml
@@ -473,6 +475,41 @@ columns:
calculated: substract(column.CollectionTime,TimeFlowEndMs)
default: false
width: 5
- id: PktDropBytes
Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak Oct 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

isn't it going to have side effect on the console plugin, to have this new field (since it's also nested under Bytes) ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is an impact on both table and side panel indeed:

  • table allow the user to pick these fields (disabled by default)
  • side panel display these fields separately wich need a small refactor to skip these as it's already included in the other ones

image

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin@c57e3ec

@jotak jotak changed the title NETOBSERV-1580 update frontend config for CLI NETOBSERV-1580: update frontend config for CLI Nov 4, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 4, 2024 •
edited by openshift-ci bot
Loading

@jpinsonneau: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1580 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 story to target the "4.18.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Simple config update to make CLI compatible

  • added missing fields references when multiple fields were involved (console plugin takes the array in priority)
  • added missing drop related fields (these will not be shown by default but selectable in the plugin)

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.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Nov 4, 2024
@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 12, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by:

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 709c6ba into main Dec 12, 2024
11 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jotak jotak jotak approved these changes

@msherif1234 msherif1234 Awaiting requested review from msherif1234

Assignees

@jotak jotak

Labels
approved jira/valid-reference lgtm
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@jpinsonneau @openshift-ci-robot @jotak