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

feat: improved environment column (provider info) #8303

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

Conversation

deboer-tim
Copy link
Collaborator

@deboer-tim deboer-tim commented Jul 31, 2024

What does this PR do?

Currently, the environment columns all show a ProviderInfo that only says 'Podman', 'Docker', or 'Kubernetes'. When you have multiple Podman instances or switch Kubernetes contexts it would be more useful to provide some more information.

This PR makes changes to both environments:

  • For Kubernetes contexts, use the name of the provider (e.g. Kind or OpenShift Local) if we can find it based on the current context endpoint (since we only support the current context).
  • For container providers, use the name of the provider, e.g. 'Podman'. If the provider has more than one connection (e.g. I have two Podman machines), use the name of the connection (machine)

Screenshot / video of UI

Before:

Screenshot 2024-07-31 at 10 27 18 AM

After:

Screenshot 2024-07-31 at 10 26 58 AM

What issues does this PR fix or reference?

Part of #8281.

How to test this PR?

Try in a simple setup with just one machine/Kubernetes context, as well as with multiple machines, switching context, etc.

Would especially like some feedback from people who have tried the Podman remote support.

  • Tests are covering the bug fix or the new feature

Currently, the environment columns all show a ProviderInfo that only says
'Podman', 'Docker', or 'Kubernetes'. When you have multiple Podman instances
or switch Kubernetes contexts it would be more useful to provide some more
information.

This PR makes changes to both environments:
- For Kubernetes contexts, use the name of the provider (e.g. Kind or OpenShift
  Local) if we can find it based on the current context endpoint (since we only
  support the current context).
- For container providers, use the name of the provider, e.g. 'Podman'. If
  the provider has more than one connection (e.g. I have two Podman machines),
  use the name of the connection (machine).

Part of containers#8281.

Signed-off-by: Tim deBoer <[email protected]>
@deboer-tim deboer-tim requested review from benoitf and a team as code owners July 31, 2024 14:17
@deboer-tim deboer-tim requested review from cdrage and feloy and removed request for a team July 31, 2024 14:18
Copy link
Contributor

@axel7083 axel7083 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Before

image

after

image

Love it ! Just have an overflow issue, we might want to add text-overflow: ellipsis; and a tooltip?

@benoitf
Copy link
Collaborator

benoitf commented Jul 31, 2024

I don't think it'll handle all cases and how it can handle long names properly

probably the information should be on the hover/tooltip rather than the field itself

@axel7083
Copy link
Contributor

probably the information should be on the hover/tooltip rather than the field itself

I really like having this information available directly without hovering. I think an overflow nicely set handle it well

image

Copy link
Collaborator

@benoitf benoitf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the way on retrieving and extrapolating data is not something that should happen on the frontend side.

AFAIK, reconciling data is a server side thing.

@afbjorklund
Copy link
Contributor

This doesn't show any difference, between providers that are "local" and providers that are "remote"

i.e. it relies on naming the machines or the instances in some sensible way, to be able to tell them apart

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.

None yet

4 participants