Model version and details archive

[dpanshug]

RHOAIENG-6639
RHOAIENG-6640

Description

Archiving model versions.

See below video for archiving and restoring flow, along with archive model version table and details view.
Screencast from 2024-05-20 16-07-17.webm

How Has This Been Tested?

1. Move to model registry section and open a register model.
2. Try archiving and restoring model version.

Test Impact

Added unit tests and cypress tests

Request review criteria:

Self checklist (all need to be checked):

• The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work
• Commits have been squashed into descriptive, self-contained units of work (e.g. 'WIP' and 'Implements feedback' style messages have been removed)
• Testing instructions have been added in the PR body (for PRs involving changes that are not immediately obvious).
• The developer has added tests or explained why testing cannot be added (unit or cypress tests for related changes)

If you have UI changes:

• Included any necessary screenshots or gifs if it was a UI change.
• Included tags to the UX team if it was a UI/UX change (find relevant UX in the SMEs section).

After the PR is posted & before it merges:

• The developer has tested their solution on a cluster by using the image produced by the PR to main

@yih-wang

[dpanshug]

WIP because working on cypress test

[yih-wang]

Thanks @dpanshug for all the work! That looks great!

Several comments:

• After a version is restored, the user should be navigated to the version details page rather than the versions list. That will provide convenience for the following actions to that version.
• Not sure whether that should be fixed here, but in the empty state of the versions list, the link button should be put under the primary button, rather than next to each other. That follows the PF guidelines.
• I've noticed numerous tooltips are appearing when interacting with the interface. Are these tooltips part of the default PF template? It seems like they are too much and not necessary in all cases. Is that possible to display only the tooltips specified in the designs?

[dpanshug]

@yih-wang Pls check the latest screencast video.

After a version is restored, the user should be navigated to the version details page rather than the versions list. That will provide convenience for the following actions to that version.

I've updated this so restoring from the details page navigates to the version details page. Should the same happen when restoring from the Archive version table?

Not sure whether that should be fixed here, but in the empty state of the versions list, the link button should be put under the primary button, rather than next to each other. That follows the PF guidelines.

Corrected this.

I've noticed numerous tooltips are appearing when interacting with the interface. Are these tooltips part of the default PF template? It seems like they are too much and not necessary in all cases. Is that possible to display only the tooltips specified in the designs?

That's because we are using Truncate component for the name. I am not sure if we can remove the unwanted tooltip. cc @lucferbux

[lucferbux]

There are a couples of nits in the code, haven't had the time to properly test the functionality, will do tomorrow, tests seemed great!

[yih-wang]

@dpanshug Thanks for all the updates! The new video looks good.

I've updated this so restoring from the details page navigates to the version details page. Should the same happen when restoring from the Archive version table?

Yes, lets keep both flows ending up with the details page.

That's because we are using Truncate component for the name. I am not sure if we can remove the unwanted tooltip. cc @lucferbux

What makes sense to me is only the truncated names have hovering tooltips. Not sure whether it's an easy way to estimate whether it's a truncated name or not. Can we remove the tooltip also for the field below? Seems it's not due to the truncate component.

[lucferbux]

What makes sense to me is only the truncated names have hovering tooltips. Not sure whether it's an easy way to estimate whether it's a truncated name or not. Can we remove the tooltip also for the field below? Seems it's not due to the truncate component.

@yih-wang @dpanshug Oh i assumed that wasn't a tooltip but a native autofiller in the browser, let me review the code but I couldn't recall a tooltip in the confirmation modal

[yih-wang]

@lucferbux Ah yes, the one in the confirmation modal might be a browser-native component. It looks different from the tooltip above.

[lucferbux]

That's because we are using Truncate component for the name. I am not sure if we can remove the unwanted tooltip. cc @lucferbux
I was assuming we are mostly reusing what we have in other views, if we have tooltips and truncate text in say model serving and pipelines we should stick to that.

[yih-wang]

I was assuming we are mostly reusing what we have in other views, if we have tooltips and truncate text in say model serving and pipelines we should stick to that.

Agree. I'm fine if all the other places do the same thing. We could just follow the pattern and improve this as a whole in the future.

[dpanshug]

@yih-wang, updated the restore navigation also in archive table.
Screencast from 2024-05-21 14-42-53.webm

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 87.43961% with 26 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.46%. Comparing base (bac0976) to head (daa6e6f).
Report is 17 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2815      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.40%   77.46%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files        1101     1108       +7     
  Lines       23192    23383     +191     
  Branches     5848     5882      +34     
==========================================
+ Hits        17951    18114     +163     
- Misses       5241     5269      +28     

Files	Coverage Δ
...rc/pages/modelRegistry/ModelRegistryCoreLoader.tsx	72.22% <ø> (ø)
...nd/src/pages/modelRegistry/ModelRegistryRoutes.tsx	66.66% <ø> (ø)
.../src/pages/modelRegistry/screens/ModelRegistry.tsx	62.50% <ø> (ø)
...creens/ModelVersionDetails/ModelVersionDetails.tsx	95.65% <ø> (ø)
...nDetails/ModelVersionRegisteredDeploymentsView.tsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...elRegistry/screens/ModelVersions/ModelVersions.tsx	93.75% <100.00%> (ø)
...screens/ModelVersions/ModelVersionsTableColumns.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (+40.00%)	⬆️
...gistry/screens/ModelVersions/ModelVersionsTabs.tsx	90.00% <100.00%> (+1.11%)	⬆️
...odelVersionsArchive/ModelVersionArchiveDetails.tsx	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...try/screens/components/EmptyModelRegistryState.tsx	92.85% <ø> (ø)
... and 12 more

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bac0976...daa6e6f. Read the comment docs.

[manaswinidas]

/lgtm Thanks for making all the changes.

[manaswinidas]

/lgtm

[lucferbux]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lucferbux, manaswinidas

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [lucferbux]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[lucferbux]

/retest

It seems a problem with cypress and the cdn

[lucferbux]

/retest