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

ui: improve metrics api use in list views #9825

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shwstppr
Copy link
Contributor

@shwstppr shwstppr commented Oct 18, 2024

Description

In UI for the list views it is regular API view by default and *Metrics API response may not be needed. *Metrics APIs will take more time to return response so this PR tries to improve the behaviour and enables calling regular API without metrics when metrics toggle is not enabled.

Types of changes

  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
  • Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
  • build/CI
  • test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

  • Major
  • Minor

Bug Severity

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

metrics-api-improvement.mp4

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

In UI for the list views it is regular API view by default and *Metrics
API response may not be needed. *Metrics APIs will take more time to
return response so this PR tries to improve the behaviour and enables
calling regular API without metrics when metrics toggle is not enabled.

Signed-off-by: Abhishek Kumar <[email protected]>
@shwstppr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan ui

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@shwstppr a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

UI build failed: ✖️
(SL-JID-464)

@shwstppr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan ui

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@shwstppr a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 15.78%. Comparing base (20901c7) to head (6af86a7).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##               main    #9825     +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage     15.78%   15.78%             
- Complexity    12564    12565      +1     
===========================================
  Files          5627     5627             
  Lines        492266   492267      +1     
  Branches      63860    61319   -2541     
===========================================
+ Hits          77707    77709      +2     
+ Misses       406084   406083      -1     
  Partials       8475     8475             
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 4.04% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unittests 16.60% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

UI build failed: ✖️
(SL-JID-465)

Copy link
Contributor

@borisstoyanov borisstoyanov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

code LGTM, did not tested it

@DaanHoogland
Copy link
Contributor

@blueorangutan ui

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@DaanHoogland a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

UI build: ✔️
Live QA URL: https://qa.cloudstack.cloud/simulator/pr/9825 (QA-JID-476)

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.

4 participants