Filter VMs based on concerns label

[rszwajko]

Depends on #779

[ahadas]

from UI perspective, I think the screenshots look really nice and useful
there's the part of how to represent the data that we talked about yesterday offline that I need more information on

[yaacov]

The VM list is expected to contain large number of VMs, N >> 1000
Dynamically fetching labels in this case is not optimal.

For the case of a list that is expected to hold large number of items for most expected cases, I prefer a hard coded list of options.

discussion is in: #764

IMHO we will need to create a hard coded list of all potential warnings and errors labels, or filter using a new field that will have more options then category while still being predefined and well known so we can have a hard coded list of this new field strings

cc: @ahadas @rszwajko

[rszwajko]

@yaacov

The VM list is expected to contain large number of VMs, N >> 1000
Dynamically fetching labels in this case is not optimal.

To be precise we do not fetch the labels but only extract them from the VMs that we already have in-memory on the client side. We iterate over this array, filter and sort it i.e. see

forklift-console-plugin/packages/forklift-console-plugin/src/components/page/StandardPage.tsx

Line 200 in e77a33b

const filteredData = useMemo(

IMHO one more iteration to extract the labels won't change much.

[rszwajko]

Force pushed to rebase on #779

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
8.9% Duplication

[rszwajko]

Forced push to rebase + improved error handling
@yaacov as agreed a constant identifier assigned to each concern would be beneficial. However until it gets implemented I would propose to use the dynamic discovery as-it-is. If we hit any perf issues then we can re-evaluate.