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

Update status dialog for minimum exact AT versions #1065

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
May 2, 2024

Conversation

alflennik
Copy link
Contributor

Updates the TestPlanStatusDialog to support minimum and exact AtVersions, which required extensive changes to the algorithm that populates the content of that dialog.

One difference worth highlighting is that I updated the sorting of the dialog to sort by AT before sorting by "required" - the dialog feels a lot more organized when all of the reports are gathered together for one AT, especially because recommended reports can have a huge number of rows in the dialog.

One limitation of this PR is the fact that the automatic switch from minimumAtVersion to exactAtVersion which occurs when a testPlanVersion goes from candidate to recommended has not yet been implemented, mostly because this PR is already bulging at the seams and also because the PR enabling it has not yet been merged into #1055. That seems like a good follow-on task to this one.

@alflennik alflennik requested a review from howard-e April 30, 2024 16:59
Copy link
Contributor

@howard-e howard-e left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@alflennik this looks great and certainly another big step towards supporting #791 and #792!

My main hang up is with the newly named TestPlanReportStatus type. I think it may cause some confusion so would like for an alternate but if I'm alone in my thought on it, it does not have to be considered as blocking since it can be easily refactored afterwards if needed.

Comment on lines +92 to +94
counts.missing !== 0 &&
counts.completed === 0 &&
counts.inProgress === 0
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: assigning these boolean results to values may help with readability and future maintenance if needed.

An existing or missing TestPlanReport that can be collected for a given
TestPlanVersion.
"""
type TestPlanReportStatus {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Don't think I'm a huge fan of the name TestPlanReportStatus here. The way "status" has been used for test plan reports in the past, and even how it is used to currently with other entities makes me feel like there's a chance that this may bring some confusion.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For the name I was riffing off of the "TestPlanReportStatusDialog". I was considering several alternatives but nothing felt quite as semantic. Let me know if you think of anything better, I'm always game to improve it

Whether the TestPlanReport is actually required during the given
TestPlanVersion phase.
"""
isRequired: Boolean!
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice!

@@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
const requiredReports = {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've wondered how well this could scale. Removing it seems like a plus!

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
const atResolver = require('../TestPlanReport/atResolver');
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was a lot but the tests definitely make understanding this much easier!

Base automatically changed from minimum-exact-at-version to trends May 2, 2024 20:50
Copy link
Contributor

@howard-e howard-e left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As my major bit of feedback was on the name used here, TestPlanReportStatus, I don't think it's anything this particular PR has to be held up on.

Definitely something that can be revised in the future if needed.

@alflennik alflennik merged commit 3e38be7 into trends May 2, 2024
2 checks passed
@alflennik alflennik deleted the minimum-exact-status-dialog branch May 2, 2024 21:19
@howard-e howard-e mentioned this pull request Jun 20, 2024
howard-e added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 20, 2024
This includes work to support #791 and #792.

Includes the following changes:
* #1055
* #1001
* #1065
* #1052 
* #1087
* #1098 
* #1092
* #1131
* #1124

---------

Co-authored-by: Howard Edwards <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Paul Clue <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: alflennik <[email protected]>
howard-e added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2024
Includes the following changes:
* #1123, addresses #791 and #792 with:
  * #1055
  * #1001
  * #1065
  * #1052 
  * #1087
  * #1098 
  * #1092
  * #1131
  * #1124
* #1128, addresses #1100
* #1102, addresses #957
* #1132
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants