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

Requests page #7537

Closed
wants to merge 184 commits into from
Closed

Requests page #7537

wants to merge 184 commits into from

Conversation

klakhov
Copy link
Contributor

@klakhov klakhov commented Feb 29, 2024

Motivation and context

How has this been tested?

Checklist

  • I submit my changes into the develop branch
  • I have created a changelog fragment
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly
  • I have added tests to cover my changes
  • I have linked related issues (see GitHub docs)
  • I have increased versions of npm packages if it is necessary
    (cvat-canvas,
    cvat-core,
    cvat-data and
    cvat-ui)

License

  • I submit my code changes under the same MIT License that covers the project.
    Feel free to contact the maintainers if that's a concern.

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

  • New Features

    • Enhanced progress tracking for dataset export and backup operations.
    • Improved import dataset progress visibility with dynamic messages.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Fixed navigation flow in multiple Cypress test scripts by adding cy.goBack() after export operations.
    • Corrected notification handling in various test cases.
  • Refactor

    • Removed unused state properties and hooks related to importing and backupIsActive across multiple components.
    • Restructured state management in reducers for export and import actions.
  • Tests

    • Updated Cypress commands for downloading exports and verifying downloads.
    • Added new commands for better test flow management in Cypress scripts.
  • Documentation

    • Updated copyright year in various components.
  • Chores

    • Added new error handling and notification messages for request-related actions.

field_name=StorageType.TARGET,
)
except ValueError as ex:
raise serializers.ValidationError(str(ex)) from ex

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Information exposure through an exception Medium

Stack trace information
flows to this location and may be exposed to an external user.
- basicAuth: []
responses:
'202':
description: Exporting has been started
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This returns a request ID, right? Can you add a response schema?

Comment on lines +9838 to +9846
created_date:
type: string
format: date-time
readOnly: true
enqueued_date:
type: string
format: date-time
readOnly: true
nullable: true
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a meaningful difference between created_date and enqueued_date, as far as the user is concerned? If a request was created, it must have also been enqueued.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably not for now, but I think it depends on whether we're going to inform the user about deferred jobs or continue to mask them as queued.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Then let's only expose one of these fields until such a time when there's a reason to expose the other one.

(FWIW, my vote is for created_date, as that would be consistent with other API resources.)

Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Jun 27, 2024

@klakhov
Copy link
Contributor Author

klakhov commented Jun 27, 2024

I will close this PR and re-open it. It became messy with lots of comments from AI tools and reviews.

@klakhov klakhov closed this Jun 27, 2024
@klakhov klakhov mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2024
6 tasks
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

6 participants