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

[Frontend] Remove experiment tracking #2212

Conversation

tynandebold
Copy link
Member

@tynandebold tynandebold commented Nov 29, 2024

Description

Resolves #2207

Development notes

Removed all frontend references to experiment tracking.

Still to discuss if we want to:

  • Remove all routing and react-router-dom
  • Remove the sanitizedPathname() function

QA notes

Test the app locally. Everything should be the same, just without experiment tracking.

Checklist

  • Read the contributing guidelines
  • Opened this PR as a 'Draft Pull Request' if it is work-in-progress
  • Updated the documentation to reflect the code changes
  • Added new entries to the RELEASE.md file
  • Added tests to cover my changes

@Huongg
Copy link
Contributor

Huongg commented Dec 2, 2024

Hey, thanks for putting together this PR @tynandebold ! I'll take some time to review it this morning since it's still a draft. Here are my thoughts on the two points you mentioned:

  • sanitizedPathname: I think we can remove this since we no longer need to switch between two routes, and it doesn’t seem like it would cause any breaking changes.
  • react-router-dom: My initial thought is yes, we could remove it since we don't have multiple routes anymore. However, we still use some features from it, like matchPath and useHistoryfor dynamic URLs. Removing it might require refactoring for the URL handling. My gut feeling is that we should treat this separately and not include it in the current scope.

Let me know you thoughts 😄

@Huongg
Copy link
Contributor

Huongg commented Dec 2, 2024

Screenshot 2024-12-02 at 10 18 07

Also a question for @stephkaiser, since we're removing experiment tracking from the navigation bar, does it still make sense to highlight the flowchart?

@Huongg
Copy link
Contributor

Huongg commented Dec 3, 2024

hey overall the changes look good to me, i tested it locally and everything seems okay, apart from /experiment-tracking is still loading and not throwing error. I'll do another scan again after I've done with my current PR. Thank you very much @tynandebold

dependabot bot and others added 4 commits December 3, 2024 13:34
Updates the requirements on [moto](https://github.com/getmoto/moto) to permit the latest version.
- [Release notes](https://github.com/getmoto/moto/releases)
- [Changelog](https://github.com/getmoto/moto/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md)
- [Commits](getmoto/moto@5.0.9...5.0.21)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: moto
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Updates the requirements on [httpx](https://github.com/encode/httpx) to permit the latest version.
- [Release notes](https://github.com/encode/httpx/releases)
- [Changelog](https://github.com/encode/httpx/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md)
- [Commits](encode/httpx@0.27.0...0.28.0)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: httpx
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Updates the requirements on [bandit](https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit) to permit the latest version.
- [Release notes](https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit/releases)
- [Commits](PyCQA/bandit@1.7.0...1.8.0)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: bandit
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Updates the requirements on [boto3](https://github.com/boto/boto3) to permit the latest version.
- [Release notes](https://github.com/boto/boto3/releases)
- [Commits](boto/boto3@1.34.0...1.35.71)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: boto3
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Jitendra Gundaniya <[email protected]>
@jitu5
Copy link
Contributor

jitu5 commented Dec 4, 2024

@tynandebold I have reviewed it and tested locally as well and all looks good. Just few note,

  1. If we hit /experiment-tracking url directly as Huong mentioned its not throwing error.
  2. sanitizedPathname is still there in utils, if we are planning to remove it.
  3. Recent fix related to 404 Github pages issue, we need to revert that as well.

@tynandebold tynandebold marked this pull request as ready for review December 4, 2024 12:23
@tynandebold tynandebold requested a review from jitu5 December 4, 2024 12:24
Comment on lines +69 to +71
# Python
.venv/
mise.toml
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've added this because I'm using mise to manage my Python environment, not conda.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was a mise user as well for a while! Until I discovered https://docs.astral.sh/uv/ 😄

Copy link
Contributor

@Huongg Huongg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey thank you @tynandebold, amazing work and super quick turnaround! Everything looks great to me except for one small NIT point. It's all running okay on my local setup as well. As we discussed, /experiment-tracking doesn’t throw any errors on localhost. We’ll revisit this once I complete the backend removal, and we can re-test it on the feature_branch. I'll leave the note to remind us to test it in the feature_branch

src/store/initial-state.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@jitu5 jitu5 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @tynandebold Amazing...!

@astrojuanlu
Copy link
Member

Thank you @tynandebold !

We received feedback from some team members that the decision to proceed with the removal was a bit opaque. So in light of the importance of this step, I think the right call is to request approval from the TSC. It will delay the PR a bit but does everyone agree?

@jitu5
Copy link
Contributor

jitu5 commented Dec 5, 2024

Thank you @tynandebold !

We received feedback from some team members that the decision to proceed with the removal was a bit opaque. So in light of the importance of this step, I think the right call is to request approval from the TSC. It will delay the PR a bit but does everyone agree?

@astrojuanlu Make sense to include TSC.

@Huongg
Copy link
Contributor

Huongg commented Dec 5, 2024

I think the right call is to request approval from the TSC. It will delay the PR a bit but does everyone agree?

hey @astrojuanlu That's a good idea to get approval from the TSC, the question is there will be at least 3-5 more PRs as a part of this work. Do we add them in every PR? Or should we add them to the feature_branch which will have the final changes both back-end, front-end, docs etc.

@tynandebold
Copy link
Member Author

I think the right call is to request approval from the TSC. It will delay the PR a bit but does everyone agree?

hey @astrojuanlu That's a good idea to get approval from the TSC, the question is there will be at least 3-5 more PRs as a part of this work. Do we add them in every PR? Or should we add them to the feature_branch which will have the final changes both back-end, front-end, docs etc.

A TSC vote makes sense and so does your point, Huong.

I think the TSC approval should be on the feature_branch/remove-experiment-tracking branch, which will be the final, all-encompassing PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@SajidAlamQB SajidAlamQB left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for this, I've tested it manually and all seems good!

@astrojuanlu
Copy link
Member

I think the TSC approval should be on the feature_branch/remove-experiment-tracking branch, which will be the final, all-encompassing PR.

Sounds good, thanks 👍🏼 please keep it in mind before submitting the final PR to main

@Huongg Huongg merged commit 2cc3aad into feature_branch/remove-experiment-tracking Dec 6, 2024
29 checks passed
@Huongg Huongg deleted the feature/remove-experiment-tracking branch December 6, 2024 11:42
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.

5 participants