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

[SIP-5] Refactor Chord vis #5671

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 21, 2018
Merged

[SIP-5] Refactor Chord vis #5671

merged 3 commits into from
Aug 21, 2018

Conversation

kristw
Copy link
Contributor

@kristw kristw commented Aug 18, 2018

Decouple the visualization code from slice and formData

Test

Ran a development instance with the code above and verified with production instance that they produce the same results.

@williaster @conglei @graceguo-supercat

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Aug 18, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #5671 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5671      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   63.51%   63.49%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         360      360              
  Lines       22904    22911       +7     
  Branches     2551     2551              
==========================================
  Hits        14548    14548              
- Misses       8341     8348       +7     
  Partials       15       15
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
superset/assets/src/visualizations/chord.jsx 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cdd348a...8d44233. Read the comment docs.

@williaster
Copy link
Contributor

wohoo! 🎉 this is the start of an amazing thing! 👯📈

overall looks great, a couple questions/thoughts:

  • is it worth starting to define consistent data shapes with this decoupling? It might be too early for that but it seems potentially worthwhile to define/track the expected data shape (since you have the context of the vis fresh while doing this). we could define the data shape as a PropTypes.shape({ .. }) and then comment them out in the file until later.

  • do you think we should move adapters to a separate file or directory? I'm a fan of small files for easy readability but again, it might be too early to start doing that/could just do in one PR later

@kristw
Copy link
Contributor Author

kristw commented Aug 20, 2018

Good idea with the data shape. I can start from defining propTypes for each chart.
Also a fan of small files, but let's keep that for another sweep PR, so each chart can be refactored independently without touching vizTypes and cause potential merge conflicts.

Copy link
Contributor

@williaster williaster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🔥 LGTM!

TIL that checkPropTypes exists :)

@mistercrunch mistercrunch merged commit 683edc3 into apache:master Aug 21, 2018
kristw added a commit to kristw/incubator-superset that referenced this pull request Aug 22, 2018
* refactor Chord vis

* Add PropTypes

* change module.exports to export default

(cherry picked from commit 683edc3)
@kristw kristw deleted the kristw-chord branch August 22, 2018 18:14
@kristw kristw changed the title Refactor Chord vis [SIP-5] Refactor Chord vis Aug 24, 2018
wenchma pushed a commit to wenchma/incubator-superset that referenced this pull request Nov 16, 2018
* refactor Chord vis

* Add PropTypes

* change module.exports to export default
@mistercrunch mistercrunch added 🏷️ bot A label used by `supersetbot` to keep track of which PR where auto-tagged with release labels 🚢 0.28.0 labels Feb 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
🏷️ bot A label used by `supersetbot` to keep track of which PR where auto-tagged with release labels 🚢 0.28.0
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants