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

Support filtering on storage state #629

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 11, 2019

Conversation

yebrahim
Copy link
Contributor

@yebrahim yebrahim commented Jan 4, 2019

/area back-end
/assign @neuromage @IronPan


This change is Reviewable

@neuromage
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ var runAPIToModelFieldMap = map[string]string{
"created_at": "CreatedAtInSec",
"description": "Description",
"scheduled_at": "ScheduledAtInSec",
"storage_state": "StorageState",
"storageState": "StorageState",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's use storage_state here, and fix the case in the proto name instead. It's more consistent, and in line with the style guide for proto field naming.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should, but I'm kind of blocked on your bazel changes since I can't re-generate the client libs with the changes. If you think we'll land that change soon, we can block this PR on it. Otherwise, let's get this merged and refactor it separately?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh yeah good point. I think the Bazel change is good to go.
@IronPan do you think you can get to that change soon? If not, maybe let's submit this first and change names later.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMO we desperately need #631.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry I was not review the bazel PR on time because I am not on the reviewer list.
In most of the time I only review the PR that assigned to me. I'll review it now

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Correction not on the assignee list

@neuromage
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@IronPan
Copy link
Member

IronPan commented Jan 5, 2019

do we still need this change?

@yebrahim
Copy link
Contributor Author

yebrahim commented Jan 5, 2019

This change is needed, but will be updated with the right snake case when the bazel change is merged, since I'll need to rebuild the client libs and push them in this PR too.

@IronPan
Copy link
Member

IronPan commented Jan 5, 2019

SGTM

@yebrahim
Copy link
Contributor Author

yebrahim commented Jan 9, 2019

Rebased to pick up other fixes, PTAL.

@IronPan
Copy link
Member

IronPan commented Jan 9, 2019

/lgtm

@yebrahim
Copy link
Contributor Author

yebrahim commented Jan 9, 2019

/test kubeflow-pipeline-e2e-test

1 similar comment
@yebrahim
Copy link
Contributor Author

yebrahim commented Jan 9, 2019

/test kubeflow-pipeline-e2e-test

@yebrahim yebrahim changed the title Support filtering on storage state [WIP] Support filtering on storage state Jan 10, 2019
@yebrahim yebrahim changed the title [WIP] Support filtering on storage state Support filtering on storage state Jan 11, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@rileyjbauer rileyjbauer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit df635af into kubeflow:master Jan 11, 2019
@yebrahim yebrahim deleted the storage-state branch January 15, 2019 19:22
HumairAK pushed a commit to red-hat-data-services/data-science-pipelines that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2024
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.

5 participants