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

address truncation of names in connection type tables #3210

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 13, 2024

Conversation

christianvogt
Copy link
Contributor

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHOAIENG-12827

Description

Changed table variant to not be compact and truncates long names:
image

Added name truncation to fields table:
image

Added name and description truncation to connections table:
image

For reference. The serving runtimes admin table uses the ResourceNameTooltip component and it still looks the same as before vs after
image
image

How Has This Been Tested?

Manually tested by creating resources with long names in the various UI areas.

Test Impact

N/A. Visual only changes.

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

cc @simrandhaliw

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 13, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.29%. Comparing base (3a76f55) to head (cdc10b9).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3210      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.30%   85.29%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1267     1267              
  Lines       27833    27836       +3     
  Branches     7411     7412       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        23742    23744       +2     
- Misses       4091     4092       +1     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
frontend/src/components/ResourceNameTooltip.tsx 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../src/components/table/TableRowTitleDescription.tsx 95.23% <100.00%> (-4.77%) ⬇️
...src/pages/connectionTypes/ConnectionTypesTable.tsx 81.81% <ø> (ø)
.../pages/connectionTypes/ConnectionTypesTableRow.tsx 62.22% <ø> (ø)
...ypes/manage/ManageConnectionTypeFieldsTableRow.tsx 85.71% <ø> (-0.50%) ⬇️
...screens/detail/connections/ConnectionsTableRow.tsx 88.23% <ø> (-0.66%) ⬇️

... and 4 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 3a76f55...cdc10b9. Read the comment docs.

@emilys314
Copy link
Contributor

The table truncation looks good to me!

screenhsots

image
image

Semi related, but the width of the preview gets quite messed up as well when a section field (name or desc) starts to overflow out of the right edge. Then all the other fields expand to fill the gap as well

preview screenhsot

image

@christianvogt
Copy link
Contributor Author

christianvogt commented Sep 13, 2024

I think trying to support excessively long user input strings without any spaces in them is going to break most parts of the app so I don't think it's something to do in this PR.

@emilys314
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 13, 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 f130d33 into opendatahub-io:main Sep 13, 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