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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

[ML] Modifies page title to Create job #70191

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 30, 2020
Merged

[ML] Modifies page title to Create job #70191

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0504325
[ML] Modifies page title to Create data frame analytics job.
szabosteve Jun 29, 2020
69950a7
Changes Create data frame analytics job to Create job.
szabosteve Jun 30, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions x-pack/plugins/ml/public/application/data_frame_analytics/pages/analytics_creation/page.tsx
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -149,13 +149,13 @@ export const Page: FC<Props> = ({ jobId }) => {
{jobId === undefined && (
<FormattedMessage
id="xpack.ml.dataframe.analytics.creationPageTitle"
defaultMessage="Create analytics job"
defaultMessage="Create data frame analytics job"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wondering if we need the full Create data frame analytics job text here, or if just Create job is enough? Do the breadcrumbs provide sufficient context that we are creating a data frame analytics job?

In the anomaly detection jobs wizard for example, do we need it changed to Create anomaly detection job: Advanced or is it enough just to use Create job: Advanced as is used currently.

image

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's a good point that we have two options here: a) use the full name, which is what this PR currently proposes, or (b) use the really short name and align with what we do in anomaly detection. I think both of these options are valid, the conciseness of (b) is appealing.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome! Thanks for raising the question @peteharverson and for your insight @lcawl. My vote goes to the b option, too. I modify the PR accordingly.

szabosteve marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
/>
)}
{jobId !== undefined && (
<FormattedMessage
id="xpack.ml.dataframe.analytics.clone.creationPageTitle"
defaultMessage="Clone analytics job from {jobId}"
defaultMessage="Clone data frame analytics job from {jobId}"
szabosteve marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
values={{ jobId }}
/>
)}
Expand Down