Monitor Tab: Cannot choose another timeframe

[nofar9792]

Which problem is this PR solving?

Resolve (#897)

before:

Screen.Recording.2022-02-27.at.14.13.10.mov

after:

Screen.Recording.2022-02-27.at.14.14.19.mov

The issue was the calculation of the timeframe. I did in the constructor and not on every new state

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #898 (8bbd8ae) into main (6e06ce0) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 8bbd8ae differs from pull request most recent head 2ce04a8. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2ce04a8 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #898      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.43%   95.47%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         240      240              
  Lines        7471     7475       +4     
  Branches     1867     1868       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         7130     7137       +7     
+ Misses        335      332       -3     
  Partials        6        6              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...r-ui/src/components/Monitor/ServicesView/index.tsx	98.87% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
...mponents/TracePage/TraceStatistics/tableValues.tsx	98.96% <0.00%> (+1.03%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6e06ce0...2ce04a8. Read the comment docs.

[albertteoh]

LGTM, thanks for fixing! Curious, is there a test we could write to prevent this from happening again?

[nofar9792]

@albertteoh i added the test + small change in the implementation

[nofar9792]

@yurishkuro @albertteoh I don't understand why the test coverage decreased.
My changes are not related to packages/jaeger-ui/src/components/TracePage/TraceStatistics/tableValues.tsx

[albertteoh]

I don't understand why the test coverage decreased.

I don't understand the root cause either, but I have observed flakiness in codecov in the past with jaeger-ui PRs. The workaround was to close and re-open the PR to see if it resolves the issue, which I'll try now for you.

I'd be keen to learn if anyone else has insights on why the codecov check is failing.

[albertteoh]

FWIW, a link to what codecov thinks is where the coverage regression exists, which doesn't seem to be related to this PR: https://app.codecov.io/gh/jaegertracing/jaeger-ui/compare/898/changes.

Any ideas @yurishkuro?