TaskRun details and log page #6851

abhinandan13jan · 2020-10-06T12:32:20Z

Addresses

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ODC-4801

Screenshot

Tests

Added two test suites, TaskRunDetails and TaskRunLogs

Browser conformance

chrome

karthikjeeyar · 2020-10-06T14:09:37Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/TaskRunLog.tsx

+  props.obj.status?.podName ? (
+    <TaskRunLog {...props} />
+  ) : (
+    <StatusBox loadError="Pod not found" label="TaskRun Log" />


Why can't we have this check in the above function and early exit if podName is not available 🤔

It works, but it fails lint check when there is an if block before the useK8sGet Hook

Best to name this wrapper component and export that as default.

named as wrapper

karthikjeeyar · 2020-10-06T14:11:16Z

/kind feature

sahil143 · 2020-10-08T04:06:14Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/TaskRunLog.tsx

+    obj.status.podName,
+    obj.metadata.namespace,
+  );
+  if (podLoaded) {


Suggested change

if (podLoaded) {

if (podLoaded && !podError) {

updated this as well as named to TaskRunLogWrapper

sahil143 · 2020-10-08T04:25:22Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/TaskRunLog.tsx

+  props.obj.status?.podName ? (
+    <TaskRunLog {...props} />
+  ) : (
+    <StatusBox loadError="Pod not found" label="TaskRun Log" />


Best to name this wrapper component and export that as default.

sahil143

@abhinandan13jan Logs doesn't seem to be streaming. It just says loading and when step is changed from the dropdown. There is an error

But it streams fine in the Pipeline run logs

sahil143 · 2020-10-09T05:04:57Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/TaskRunLog.tsx

+};
+
+// to safeguard against cases where Pod is yet to be assigned or is removed
+const TaskRunLogWrapper = (props: TaskRunLogProps) =>


This is a Functional Component. Should type it properly

Suggested change

const TaskRunLogWrapper = (props: TaskRunLogProps) =>

const TaskRunLogWrapper: React.FC<TaskRunLogProps> = (props) =>

karthikjeeyar · 2020-10-09T06:55:27Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/TaskRunDetails.tsx

+              <Status status={pipelineRunFilterReducer(taskRun)} />
+            </dd>
+          </dl>
+          <PipelineRunDetailsErrorLog pipelineRun={taskRun} />


These two pipelineRun specific functions called in the context of taskRun looks odd to me. If taskRun has more specific type definition, then this will cause lint errors and confusions in future. It will be good to refactor these to a generic function calls. WDYT?

I've updated such that PLR and TR uses separate utils and point to a common component

abhinandan13jan · 2020-10-09T08:15:25Z

@abhinandan13jan Logs doesn't seem to be streaming. It just says loading and when step is changed from the dropdown. There is an error

But it streams fine in the Pipeline run logs

Strange, I find it to work the same as Pod log

andrewballantyne · 2020-10-09T21:03:46Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/pipelineruns/logs/LogSnippetBlock.tsx

-  pipelineRun: PipelineRun;
+  pipelineRun?: PipelineRun;
+  taskRun?: K8sResourceKind;


Maybe we just simplify this to a single K8sResourceKind or even better down to just namespace?

simplified to namespace for all cases

andrewballantyne · 2020-10-09T21:09:11Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/__tests__/TaskRunDetails.spec.tsx

+describe('TaskRunDetailsPage', () => {
+  const pipelineRunWrapper = shallow(<TaskRunDetails {...TaskDetailsProps} />);
+  it('Renders a SectionHeading', () => {
+    expect(pipelineRunWrapper.find(SectionHeading).exists());
+  });
+  it('Renders a Resource Summary', () => {
+    expect(pipelineRunWrapper.find(ResourceSummary).exists());
+  });
+  it('Renders a Status', () => {
+    expect(pipelineRunWrapper.find(Status).exists());
+  });
+  it('Renders a Task Run Log snippet', () => {
+    expect(pipelineRunWrapper.find(TaskRunDetailsErrorLog).exists());
+  });
+});


Testing against static content won't save us from anything. The best it can do is fail a test when we change the layout... there isn't any conditional here that we would be concerned about. Ie, no logic breaks can cause these tests to fail.

This is just based on current acceptance criteria. Just to make sure, the code adheres to the AC

Unit tests guard against accidental breaks in logic.

Eg. A unit test for add5() would be add5(5).toBe(10)... you could test positive numbers, negative numbers, strings (should return NaN), objects, etc, etc...

If you wrap your add5():

function getOffsetNumber() { return add5(37); }

This function doesn't get you much but it allows the caller not to worry about providing this static 37 (this is an overly simple example). A testing of this function doesn't mean much. getOffsetNumber().toBe(42)... how will this test break? If we choose 37 is not a valid constant anymore? So we just change the test and the code at the same time and nothing super shocking here happens. No assistance is really provided by our test, no assurances we don't accidentally break.

Tests are so you can go into add5 and change the fact that it doesn't add 5 anymore, it subtracts 8 or does something else (uses math.random for instance). Zero inputs or inputs that don't change the output are not test worthy scenarios. They just explicitly tie our tests to our implementation and thus makes us update one more place when we need to change something. It doesn't guard against breaks.

With this mental model, React Components have a similar structure with 1 extra condition. We only shallowly look at the structure of a component. So if your React Component does not take any props or the props are not conditional rendering props but just pass-thru props, then there are no tests needing to be written.

So in summary, because I ranted a bit here. Don't test a component that does not use conditional rendering as you're not really writing a test, you're writing just 1 more spot to update if we need to change anything.

andrewballantyne · 2020-10-09T21:20:43Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/TaskRunLog.tsx

+import { PodModel } from '@console/internal/models';
+
+export type TaskRunLogProps = {
+  obj: K8sResourceKind;


Suggested change

obj: K8sResourceKind;

obj: TaskRunKind;

karthikjeeyar

I observe the same issue as sahil mentioned above.When you create a taskRun, logs are not streaming correctly.

karthikjeeyar · 2020-10-12T10:04:59Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/utils/pipeline-filter-reducer.ts

@@ -58,3 +58,8 @@ export const pipelineResourceTypeFilter = (filters, pipelineResource): boolean =
  const type = pipelineResourceFilterReducer(pipelineResource);
  return filters.selected.has(type) || !_.includes(filters.all, type);
 };
+
+export const taskRunFilterReducer = (taskRun): string => {


Suggested change

export const taskRunFilterReducer = (taskRun): string => {

export const taskRunFilterReducer = (taskRun: TaskRunKind): string => {

cyclic dependence will be there

karthikjeeyar · 2020-10-12T10:06:42Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/utils/pipeline-filter-reducer.ts

@@ -58,3 +58,8 @@ export const pipelineResourceTypeFilter = (filters, pipelineResource): boolean =
  const type = pipelineResourceFilterReducer(pipelineResource);
  return filters.selected.has(type) || !_.includes(filters.all, type);
 };
+
+export const taskRunFilterReducer = (taskRun): string => {
+  const status = pipelineRunStatus(taskRun);


pipelineRunStatus function should be also typed to accept PipelineRun | TaskRunKind as arguments

There's one issue with that. It's a cyclic dependence and pipeline-filter-reducer doesn't have types. It should be a separate issue to refactor Types out of pipeline-augment. cc: @andrewballantyne

I would prefer here to not reuse pipelineRunStatus at all and to not mix PipelineRun and TaskRun objects. I personally would prefer in this case "duplicated" code for both types instead of methods which supports both.

But that's up to you. But we should at least add some types here. +1 for that.

Yeah, types are annoying in this file. So it should be handled by the work to take Pipelines out of DevConsole package

karthikjeeyar · 2020-10-12T10:08:48Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/__tests__/TaskRunDetails.spec.tsx

+const TaskDetailsProps: Props = {
+  obj: {
+    kind: 'TaskRun',
+    metadata: { name: 'abhi', namespace: 'abhi1' },
+    status: {
+      completionTime: '2019-10-29T11:57:53Z',
+      conditions: [
+        {
+          lastTransitionTime: '2019-10-29T11:57:53Z',
+          reason: 'Failed',
+          status: 'True',
+          type: 'Failed',
+        },
+      ],
+    },
+  },
+};
+


can we please move this to a test-data file ? and reuse in other spec files.

karthikjeeyar · 2020-10-12T10:09:40Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/__tests__/TaskRunLog.spec.tsx

+import * as React from 'react';
+import { PodLogs } from '@console/internal/components/pod-logs';
+import { StatusBox } from '@console/internal/components/utils/status-box';
+import { shallow } from 'enzyme';


nit: sort imports

abhinandan13jan · 2020-10-12T14:01:32Z

I observe the same issue as sahil mentioned above.When you create a taskRun, logs are not streaming correctly.

Fixed it with useK8sWatchResource hook

bgliwa01 · 2020-10-14T17:03:58Z

Will all of the columns be added on the list view? Right now I only see namespace and created, but there should be others included as seen in this PR - #6840 (comment)

I'm not sure if these designs will automatically update based on Deb's PR or not...

serenamarie125

Based on @siamaksade comment ...

Strange, I find it to work the same as Pod log

@abhinandan13jan If possible, I'd suggest that we use the same component from the Log tab in PipelineRun here, but just not show the left nav piece with the task list

I think this was a miscommunication because we discussed "using conventions" :)

abhinandan13jan · 2020-10-15T07:01:36Z

Will all of the columns be added on the list view? Right now I only see namespace and created, but there should be others included as seen in this PR - #6840 (comment)

I'm not sure if these designs will automatically update based on Deb's PR or not...

@bgliwa01 Yes, the list view will be updated as per @debsmita1 's PR. You can ignore the list view shown in my screenshots :)

abhinandan13jan · 2020-10-15T09:49:48Z

Based on @siamaksade comment ...

Strange, I find it to work the same as Pod log

@abhinandan13jan If possible, I'd suggest that we use the same component from the Log tab in PipelineRun here, but just not show the left nav piece with the task list

I think this was a miscommunication because we discussed "using conventions" :)

Hi @serenamarie125 !! I've updated to use the Multistreaming Log

karthikjeeyar · 2020-10-15T14:06:10Z

Verified locally, works fine
/lgtm

bgliwa01

lgtm

invincibleJai · 2020-10-20T14:58:09Z

@abhinandan13jan looks like, it needs rebase

andrewballantyne · 2020-11-02T16:06:22Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/pipelineruns/logs/RunDetailsErrorLog.tsx

 import LogSnippetBlock from './LogSnippetBlock';

 type PipelineStatusLogProps = {
-  pipelineRun: PipelineRun;
+  logDetails;


Need a type

andrewballantyne

Looks good, just need to use the TaskRunKind

andrewballantyne · 2020-11-02T18:38:06Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/pipelineruns/logs/log-snippet-types.ts

+export type TaskRunStatus = {
+  podName?: string;
+  conditions: Condition[];
+};
+
+export type TaskRunData = K8sResourceKind & {
+  status: TaskRunStatus;
+};


Should just add these to the TaskRunKind...

andrewballantyne · 2020-11-02T18:38:57Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/TaskRunDetails.tsx


 export interface TaskRunDetailsProps {
-  obj: K8sResourceKind;
+  obj: K8sResourceKind & { status: TaskRunStatus };


Suggested change

obj: K8sResourceKind & { status: TaskRunStatus };

obj: TaskRunKind;

andrewballantyne · 2020-11-02T18:39:32Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/taskruns/logs/taskRunLogSnippet.ts

+import { CombinedErrorDetails, TaskRunData } from '../../pipelineruns/logs/log-snippet-types';
+import { taskRunSnippetMessage } from '../../pipelineruns/logs/log-snippet-utils';
+
+export const getTRLogSnippet = (taskRun: TaskRunData): CombinedErrorDetails => {


Suggested change

export const getTRLogSnippet = (taskRun: TaskRunData): CombinedErrorDetails => {

export const getTRLogSnippet = (taskRun: TaskRunKind): CombinedErrorDetails => {

karthikjeeyar · 2020-11-03T10:24:11Z

/retest

karthikjeeyar · 2020-11-03T10:32:04Z

/retest

karthikjeeyar · 2020-11-03T11:20:14Z

/retest

abhinandan13jan · 2020-11-03T12:20:22Z

/test backend

karthikjeeyar · 2020-11-03T12:21:45Z

Verified locally, works fine
/lgtm

openshift-bot · 2020-11-03T13:38:49Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

andrewballantyne · 2020-11-03T14:41:01Z

frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/pipelineruns/logs/log-snippet-types.ts

+export type TaskRunStatus = {
+  completionTime?: string;
+  conditions: Condition[];
+  podName?: string;
+  startTime?: string;
+  steps?: PLRTaskRunStep[];
+};
+
+export type TaskRunData = K8sResourceKind & {
+  status: TaskRunStatus;
+};


Failed to remove this code 😄 Please trim it out so we don't have confusion on which to use.

yup.. updated..thanks

andrewballantyne · 2020-11-03T14:42:20Z

/lgtm cancel

andrewballantyne · 2020-11-03T14:43:08Z

/approve

Remove the unused code and we should be good to go.

karthikjeeyar · 2020-11-04T09:06:36Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-11-04T09:06:57Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: abhinandan13jan, andrewballantyne, bgliwa01, jerolimov, karthikjeeyar

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:

~~frontend/packages/dev-console/OWNERS~~ [andrewballantyne]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

openshift-ci-robot added the component/dev-console Related to dev-console label Oct 6, 2020

openshift-ci-robot requested review from rohitkrai03 and rottencandy October 6, 2020 12:32

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 5ada0b3 to ea246a8 Compare October 6, 2020 13:23

karthikjeeyar reviewed Oct 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci-robot added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Oct 6, 2020

sahil143 suggested changes Oct 8, 2020

View reviewed changes

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from ea246a8 to 4705e16 Compare October 8, 2020 11:58

debsmita1 mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2020

Update TaskRun List Page Columns & PipelineRun Tab #6840

Merged

sahil143 reviewed Oct 9, 2020

View reviewed changes

karthikjeeyar reviewed Oct 9, 2020

View reviewed changes

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 4705e16 to 78e130c Compare October 9, 2020 10:20

andrewballantyne suggested changes Oct 9, 2020

View reviewed changes

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 78e130c to d32ca0c Compare October 12, 2020 09:40

karthikjeeyar reviewed Oct 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from d32ca0c to 127ffb5 Compare October 12, 2020 13:58

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 127ffb5 to 70c915a Compare October 14, 2020 10:54

serenamarie125 suggested changes Oct 14, 2020

View reviewed changes

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 70c915a to 70aaab8 Compare October 15, 2020 09:38

openshift-ci-robot assigned karthikjeeyar Oct 15, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 15, 2020

bgliwa01 approved these changes Oct 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch 2 times, most recently from ca4221e to 0d31381 Compare November 2, 2020 11:28

andrewballantyne suggested changes Nov 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 0d31381 to fc7611f Compare November 2, 2020 17:23

andrewballantyne approved these changes Nov 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 2, 2020

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from fc7611f to 9821974 Compare November 3, 2020 10:03

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 9821974 to 2baf77f Compare November 3, 2020 10:42

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 2baf77f to 1e2f3d9 Compare November 3, 2020 11:54

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 3, 2020

andrewballantyne reviewed Nov 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci-robot assigned andrewballantyne Nov 3, 2020

openshift-ci-robot removed lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Nov 3, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 3, 2020

TaskRun details Page

ba944b6

abhinandan13jan force-pushed the taskrun-details branch from 1e2f3d9 to ba944b6 Compare November 4, 2020 08:29

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 4, 2020

openshift-merge-robot merged commit ea90110 into openshift:master Nov 4, 2020

spadgett added this to the v4.7 milestone Nov 4, 2020

	const TaskRunLogWrapper = (props: TaskRunLogProps) =>
	const TaskRunLogWrapper: React.FC<TaskRunLogProps> = (props) =>

	export const taskRunFilterReducer = (taskRun): string => {
	export const taskRunFilterReducer = (taskRun: TaskRunKind): string => {

	obj: K8sResourceKind & { status: TaskRunStatus };
	obj: TaskRunKind;

	export const getTRLogSnippet = (taskRun: TaskRunData): CombinedErrorDetails => {
	export const getTRLogSnippet = (taskRun: TaskRunKind): CombinedErrorDetails => {

TaskRun details and log page #6851

TaskRun details and log page #6851

Conversation

abhinandan13jan commented Oct 6, 2020 • edited

Addresses

Screenshot

Tests

Browser conformance

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

karthikjeeyar commented Oct 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sahil143 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abhinandan13jan commented Oct 9, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

karthikjeeyar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jerolimov Oct 22, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abhinandan13jan commented Oct 12, 2020

bgliwa01 commented Oct 14, 2020

serenamarie125 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abhinandan13jan commented Oct 15, 2020

abhinandan13jan commented Oct 15, 2020 • edited

karthikjeeyar commented Oct 15, 2020

bgliwa01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

invincibleJai commented Oct 20, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andrewballantyne left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

karthikjeeyar commented Nov 3, 2020

karthikjeeyar commented Nov 3, 2020

karthikjeeyar commented Nov 3, 2020

abhinandan13jan commented Nov 3, 2020

karthikjeeyar commented Nov 3, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andrewballantyne commented Nov 3, 2020

andrewballantyne commented Nov 3, 2020

karthikjeeyar commented Nov 4, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 4, 2020

abhinandan13jan commented Oct 6, 2020 •

edited

jerolimov Oct 22, 2020 •

edited

abhinandan13jan commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited