🐛 "Effort" with supplemental text info via tooltip

[kpunwatk]

Resolves https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MTA-2556

[kpunwatk]

Hi @ibolton336 @sjd78 @mguetta1 Please review this PR, Thanks!

[mguetta1]

LGTM

[ibolton336]

I'm not sure if "total effort" is working as expected:

Seems as though the total is not equal to the sum of all incidents effort. May be best to leave as effort until we sort this out with backend team.

[ibolton336]

See comment.

[mguetta1]

Hi @ibolton336
I don't see the problem. The screenshot you shared is "Affected applications" by Issue: File system - Java IO:
The total effort for the "jira" application is: 15 (probably there are more than 1 issue) and the side drawer shows the effort for the specific issue (8 incidents found in 3 files, the effort for the specific issue is 1)

Hope it helps.

[ibolton336]

Hi @ibolton336 I don't see the problem. The screenshot you shared is "Affected applications" by Issue: File system - Java IO: The total effort for the "jira" application is: 15 (probably there are more than 1 issue) and the side drawer shows the effort for the specific issue (8 incidents found in 3 files, the effort for the specific issue is 1)

Hope it helps.

So "Effort" on the issues page is really an "effort weight" since it is not really the calculated value for any application? Seems like adding "total" just adds more confusion IMO since there is not a clear correlation between "effort" and "total effort". I think we could keep the name "effort" and just add a tooltip to clarify what it means in each of the 3 instances (total file calculated effort of all incidents for this file, total application effort, and effort weight) of the column, but @JustinXHale may have a better idea.

[ibolton336]

Also, most screen sizes wont have the screen real estate to show "total effort" on the apps page leaving us with a truncated title for the effort column:

[mguetta1]

So "Effort" on the issues page is really an "effort weight" since it is not really the calculated value for any application?

Correct, effort for a single issue incident

[kpunwatk]

So "Effort" on the issues page is really an "effort weight" since it is not really the calculated value for any application? Seems like adding "total" just adds more confusion IMO since there is not a clear correlation between "effort" and "total effort". I think we could keep the name "effort" and just add a tooltip to clarify what it means in each of the 3 instances (total file calculated effort of all incidents for this file, total application effort, and effort weight) of the column.

I agree. We could simply add a tooltip to avoid truncation. Additionally, I propose renaming 'Total effort' back to 'Effort' in the 'Affected Applications' section, What do you all think?

[ibolton336]

So "Effort" on the issues page is really an "effort weight" since it is not really the calculated value for any application? Seems like adding "total" just adds more confusion IMO since there is not a clear correlation between "effort" and "total effort". I think we could keep the name "effort" and just add a tooltip to clarify what it means in each of the 3 instances (total file calculated effort of all incidents for this file, total application effort, and effort weight) of the column.

I agree. We could simply add a tooltip to avoid truncation. Additionally, I propose renaming 'Total effort' back to 'Effort' in the 'Affected Applications' section, What do you all think?

I think moving back to just "Effort" with supplemental text info via tooltip would be a good approach. It maintains consistency & would provide more clarity.

[kpunwatk]

I think moving back to just "Effort" with supplemental text info via tooltip would be a good approach. It maintains consistency & would provide more clarity.

Thanks, @ibolton336 . I will make these modifications and update the PR

[kpunwatk]

Hi @ibolton336 @sjd78 @mguetta1
For consistency moving back to just "Effort" with supplemental text info via tooltip,
Please review the PR, Thanks !

[sjd78]

Adding the tooltip and the externalized strings LGTM

[sjd78]

Some i18n keys need to be fixed up. Hopefully that'll also satisfy the e2e tests.

[mguetta1]

I would like to test it, but npm install fails:

[mguetta@fedora tackle2-ui]$ npm install .
npm ERR! code ENETUNREACH
npm ERR! syscall connect
npm ERR! errno ENETUNREACH
npm ERR! request to https://registry.npmjs.org/axios/-/axios-1.6.8.tgz failed, reason: connect ENETUNREACH 2606:4700::6810:1922:443

npm ERR! A complete log of this run can be found in:
npm ERR!     /home/mguetta/.npm/_logs/2024-05-01T11_49_10_124Z-debug-0.log

[sjd78]

I would like to test it, but npm install fails:

[mguetta@fedora tackle2-ui]$ npm install .
npm ERR! code ENETUNREACH
npm ERR! syscall connect
npm ERR! errno ENETUNREACH
npm ERR! request to https://registry.npmjs.org/axios/-/axios-1.6.8.tgz failed, reason: connect ENETUNREACH 2606:4700::6810:1922:443

npm ERR! A complete log of this run can be found in:
npm ERR!     /home/mguetta/.npm/_logs/2024-05-01T11_49_10_124Z-debug-0.log

That's a strange one for sure. I haven't seen the ENETUNREACH error before. Plenty of other weird errors, just not that one. Right now, the versions node>=18.14.2 and npm@^9.5.0 are enforced in the root package.json. So you should be using an ok version.

Try this to really start up with a fresh node_modules:

> npm run clean:all
> npm clean-install --ignore-scripts
> num run start:dev

[mguetta1]

Thanks @sjd78
I run it from https://github.com/kpunwatk/tackle2-ui/tree/mta-2556 as it is, and get the same error:

[mguetta@fedora tackle2-ui]$ npm run clean:all

> @konveyor-ui/[email protected] clean:all
> npm run clean && rimraf ./node_modules ./**/node_modules/


> @konveyor-ui/[email protected] clean
> rimraf ./dist && npm run clean -ws --if-present


> @konveyor-ui/[email protected] clean
> rimraf ./dist


> @konveyor-ui/[email protected] clean
> rimraf ./dist


> @konveyor-ui/[email protected] clean
> rimraf ./dist

[mguetta@fedora tackle2-ui]$ npm clean-install --ignore-scripts
npm ERR! code ENETUNREACH
npm ERR! syscall connect
npm ERR! errno ENETUNREACH
npm ERR! request to https://registry.npmjs.org/axios/-/axios-1.6.8.tgz failed, reason: connect ENETUNREACH 2606:4700::6810:1b22:443

npm ERR! A complete log of this run can be found in:
npm ERR!     /home/mguetta/.npm/_logs/2024-05-02T10_44_52_462Z-debug-0.log

[sjd78]

@mguetta1

npm ERR! request to https://registry.npmjs.org/axios/-/axios-1.6.8.tgz failed, reason: connect ENETUNREACH 2606:4700::6810:1b22:443

Maybe it is an IPv6 error on your end when it is trying to download the axios dep? The ENETUNREACH error looks to be something on the user side of things. Can you force things to go IPv4?

FWIW, I've also tinkered with running a local verdaccio via podman/docker as an npmjs registry proxy to reduce internet traffic. Maybe something like that could help if your internet connectivity gets wonky?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 41.22%. Comparing base (b654645) to head (afacca5).
Report is 136 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1846      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   39.20%   41.22%   +2.02%     
==========================================
  Files         146      158      +12     
  Lines        4857     5189     +332     
  Branches     1164     1269     +105     
==========================================
+ Hits         1904     2139     +235     
- Misses       2939     3032      +93     
- Partials       14       18       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
client	41.22% <ø> (+2.02%)	⬆️
server	?

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.