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] Move Observe Sources into the Materialize button #23764

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 7, 2024

Conversation

bengotow
Copy link
Collaborator

Summary & Motivation

Related: https://linear.app/dagster-labs/issue/FE-517/remove-observe-sources-button-add-to-materialize-all-dropdown

Loom:
https://www.loom.com/share/2e044d1117734c2dbfff4fb4bef2a570

This PR folds the Observe Sources button into the Materialize button, which brings the Observe option to the asset catalog! I also updated the asset menus to use the same logic for building their menu items so the behavior is consistent.

How I Tested These Changes

  • There's pretty good test coverage of this button and it's updated + still passing

  • I tested this manually with observable, materializable, external, and non-SDA assets to kick the tires :-)

@bengotow
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bengotow commented Aug 20, 2024

Edit: also going to move the tooltip to the left on the main button so that this doesn't happen
image

@bengotow bengotow force-pushed the bengotow-2024-08/FE-517 branch 2 times, most recently from f1f4621 to 32a00eb Compare August 20, 2024 19:22
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 20, 2024

Deploy preview for dagit-core-storybook ready!

✅ Preview
https://dagit-core-storybook-n7b558tok-elementl.vercel.app
https://bengotow-2024-08-FE-517.core-storybook.dagster-docs.io

Built with commit 2311c74.
This pull request is being automatically deployed with vercel-action

Comment on lines 129 to 137
export const useExecuteAssetMenuItem = (
path: string[],
definition: {
assetKey: AssetKeyInput;
isObservable: boolean;
isExecutable: boolean;
isPartitioned: boolean;
hasMaterializePermission: boolean;
} | null,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we make this type more closely resemble the Asset type so we can avoid needing to attach the asset key to the definition?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like the inconsistencies are 1) isParittioned vs partitionDefinition and 2) assetKey in the object or not.

I think that we can update the AssetTableFragment to request these two fields and it'll align these. Going to do it in a quick separate PR bc it'll change a bunch of files.

@bengotow bengotow force-pushed the bengotow-2024-08/FE-517 branch 2 times, most recently from 40d6aa4 to 5cf2e51 Compare September 28, 2024 03:02
@bengotow
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bengotow commented Oct 6, 2024

Retested this in cloud using the app-proxy and it's all still working as intended after the rebase, going to merge in the AM tomorrow.

@bengotow bengotow merged commit 6454e6a into master Oct 7, 2024
3 checks passed
@bengotow bengotow deleted the bengotow-2024-08/FE-517 branch October 7, 2024 14:22
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.

3 participants