Correct metadata inaccuracy in the output viewer docs #2214
Conversation
This corrects a misleading sentence in the output viewer documentation, where the docs suggest the file name matters, but in reality the artifact name is what matters.
|
Hi @lucinvitae. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
This change is |
|
/assign alfsuse |
|
/lgtm |
| or else the Kubeflow Pipelines UI will not render the visualization. In other words, | ||
| the `.outputs.artifacts` setting for the generated pipeline component should show: | ||
| `- {name: mlpipeline-ui-metadata, path: /mlpipeline-ui-metadata.json}`. | ||
| The JSON filepath does not matter, although `/mlpipeline-ui-metadata.json` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM @lucinvitae thank you.
If you have time, maybe you can reorder the words, so they can wrap at the 80 limit. For example:
The pipeline component must write a JSON file specifying metadata for the output
viewer(s) that you want to use for visualizing the results. The component must
also export a file output artifact with an artifact name of
`mlpipeline-ui-metadata`, or else the Kubeflow Pipelines UI will not render the
visualization. In other words, the `.outputs.artifacts` setting for the
generated pipeline component should show: `- {name: mlpipeline-ui-metadata,
path: /mlpipeline-ui-metadata.json}`. The JSON filepath does not matter,
although `/mlpipeline-ui-metadata.json` is used for consistency in the examples
below.
|
I think the We should create a new OWNERS for |
Hi all adding an OWNERS file to the SDK section as suggested by @8bitmp3 in kubeflow#2214 Currently proposing as approvers: - Bobgy - IronPan - neuromage - Ark-kun - numerology I can add myself as a reviewer but would prefer someone else with more knowledge on the sdk than me.
|
/lgtm Thanks! @lucinvitae |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: numerology 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 |
* Create OWNERS file for sdk section Hi all adding an OWNERS file to the SDK section as suggested by @8bitmp3 in #2214 Currently proposing as approvers: - Bobgy - IronPan - neuromage - Ark-kun - numerology I can add myself as a reviewer but would prefer someone else with more knowledge on the sdk than me. * Update OWNERS.md Updated reviewers with 8bitmp3 and @RFMVasconcelos. I think we should be good now. * Updated OWNERS.md Removed users and fixed a typo
|
Hi there, ComponentSpec doc states that |
This corrects a misleading sentence in the output viewer documentation, where the docs suggest the file name matters, but in reality the artifact name is what matters.
This recreates #2212 which is experiencing a CI failure that may or may not be an unrelated race condition.