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

Add info alert to kserve on settings page #2082

Conversation

DaoDaoNoCode
Copy link
Member

@DaoDaoNoCode DaoDaoNoCode commented Nov 7, 2023

Closes #2047

Description

Previously, we only showed this alert when Multi-model serving platform was checked but unchecked later. In this PR, we apply the same behavior to Single model serving platform as well. No matter which checkbox was checked before but unchecked later, we show this info alert with the following text.

Screenshot 2023-11-07 at 10 46 24 AM

How Has This Been Tested?

  1. Enable both single and multi model serving platforms
  2. Uncheck either of them, but not both, see if the alert is showing

Test Impact

Add an integration test check to see if this alert also shows when single model serving platform was checked but unchecked later.

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 tests & storybook 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

@DaoDaoNoCode
Copy link
Member Author

@kaedward @vconzola Could you check the text in the alert here? The mockup only shows the alert text when we uncheck a multi-model serving platform, however, we want to apply the same behavior to the single model serving platform. Should we use a more general text as is shown in the description for both settings or do you have any better ideas to show a different alert text for the single model serving platform?

@DaoDaoNoCode DaoDaoNoCode linked an issue Nov 7, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
@lucferbux
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

Let's wait for UX first

@vconzola
Copy link

vconzola commented Nov 8, 2023

@lucferbux @DaoDaoNoCode Is the scenario here that both boxes were checked and the user just unchecked multi-model serving? If so, I'd say some thing like, "Disabling multi-model serving means that models in new projects or existing projects with no currently deployed models will be deployed from their own model server. Existing projects with currently deployed models will continue to use the serving platform selected for that project." @kaedward - Please review.

@DaoDaoNoCode
Copy link
Member Author

@vconzola It's the check for either checkbox. It also could be the user selected the single model serving platform before but unchecked it later, we also need to show the info alert, so we should either show a generic info alert for both situations or create different alert text for these 2 situations.

@vconzola
Copy link

vconzola commented Nov 8, 2023

@DaoDaoNoCode I think it would be better to have different alert text for each scenario. For the single model serving case I'd suggest something like, ""Disabling single model serving means that models in new projects or existing projects with no currently deployed models will be deployed from a shared model server. Existing projects with currently deployed models will continue to use the serving platform selected for that project." The italics just indicate changes from the multi-model use case text.

@kaedward
Copy link

kaedward commented Nov 8, 2023

@vconzola that sounds great!

@DaoDaoNoCode
Copy link
Member Author

@vconzola Thanks for the suggestion! Could you check it again?

Screenshot 2023-11-08 at 12 58 35 PM Screenshot 2023-11-08 at 12 58 46 PM

@vconzola
Copy link

vconzola commented Nov 9, 2023

LGTM.

Copy link
Contributor

@lucferbux lucferbux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Nov 9, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 9, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lucferbux

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:

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved label Nov 9, 2023
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot merged commit 4ccc506 into opendatahub-io:f/model-serving Nov 9, 2023
4 checks passed
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.

[Story]: Adapt alerting in model serving admin section
4 participants