fix(FR-386): add max value for User/Project setting modal #3050
Conversation
How to use the Graphite Merge QueueAdd either label to this PR to merge it via the merge queue:
You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link. An organization admin has required the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository. Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue. |
nowgnuesLee
changed the title
Coverage report for
|
St.❔ |
Category | Percentage | Covered / Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔴 | Statements | 4.95% (+0.03% 🔼) |
400/8077 |
| 🔴 | Branches | 4.25% (+0.01% 🔼) |
239/5621 |
| 🔴 | Functions | 2.95% (+0% 🔼) |
78/2640 |
| 🔴 | Lines | 4.87% (+0.04% 🔼) |
385/7902 |
Test suite run success
124 tests passing in 14 suites.
Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from a7b2451
| message.error( | ||
| painKiller.relieve(res.create_keypair_resource_policy.msg), | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Basically, I think we've been talking about returning a massage that shows the graphql error message directly to the user, so we don't need to include the message handling logic in painkiller.
I looked through the history, but I didn't find anything, so please check this again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with that. That’s why I plan to use a painkiller only when the error message might be undefined, as I think it’s strange not to show any message for an error. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. For the future, I think fixing the error message is the right way to go. For now, It would be better to output a specific phrase via i18n when the error message is undefined, rather than via painkiller.
| {_.chain(resourceSlots) | ||
| .keys() | ||
| .chunk(2) | ||
| .map((resourceSlotKeys, index) => ( | ||
| <Row gutter={[16, 16]} key={index}> | ||
| {_.map(resourceSlotKeys, (resourceSlotKey) => ( | ||
| <Col | ||
| span={12} | ||
| key={resourceSlotKey} | ||
| style={{ alignSelf: 'end', marginBottom: token.marginLG }} | ||
| > | ||
| <FormItemWithUnlimited | ||
| unlimitedValue={undefined} | ||
| label={ | ||
| _.get(mergedResourceSlots, resourceSlotKey) | ||
| ?.description || resourceSlotKey | ||
| } | ||
| name={['parsedTotalResourceSlots', resourceSlotKey]} | ||
| rules={[ | ||
| { | ||
| validator(__, value) { | ||
| if ( | ||
| _.includes(resourceSlotKey, 'mem') && | ||
| value && | ||
| // @ts-ignore | ||
| convertBinarySizeUnit(value, 'p').number > | ||
| {_.chain(resourceSlotKeys) | ||
| .map((resourceSlotKey) => ( | ||
| <Col |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason for this change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The structure of HOF (Higher-Order Functions) often requires reading the code from right to left, which I believe negatively impacts readability. (And honestly, I switched to the chaining approach because I found the code difficult to read.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my opinion, that code doesn't use lodash methods enough to use chains, so the addition of chains actually makes it less readable. The second chain only uses the map method, so there's no need to use them too.
resolves #3055 (FR-386)
maxvalue for each time in the setting modal on theResource PolicypageusePainkilerrchanges
onCompletedMAX_CPU_QUOTA,SIGNED_32BIT_MAX_INTMAX_CPU_QUOTA, since the CPU type is afloat, we limited the range to1e16after consulting with @fregataa.Checklist: (if applicable)