fix(ui): overlapping UI elements and add resource units to tooltips (cherry-pick #24717 for 3.2)

[mkilchhofer]

My intent was to cherry-pick

• fix(ui): overlapping UI elements and add resource units to tooltips #24717

but it seems that there were changes from:

• chore(ui): convert ApplicationDetails components to functional components #23767
• fix(ui): show delete/details action dropdown for orphaned resource #24766
• chore(ui): fix Incorrect links to applications managed by other argo instances #23266

which influences the cherry-picked commit.

I am not a frontend guy and thus I cannot elaborate what makes sense :)

At least a manually compiled version (make image) works as desired:

/cc: @rumstead

---

Checklist:

• Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this does not need to be in the release notes.
• The title of the PR states what changed and the related issues number (used for the release note).
• The title of the PR conforms to the Title of the PR
• I've included "Closes [ISSUE #]" or "Fixes [ISSUE #]" in the description to automatically close the associated issue.
• I've updated both the CLI and UI to expose my feature, or I plan to submit a second PR with them.
• Does this PR require documentation updates?
• I've updated documentation as required by this PR.
• I have signed off all my commits as required by DCO
• I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
• My build is green (troubleshooting builds).
• My new feature complies with the feature status guidelines.
• I have added a brief description of why this PR is necessary and/or what this PR solves.
• Optional. My organization is added to USERS.md.
• Optional. For bug fixes, I've indicated what older releases this fix should be cherry-picked into (this may or may not happen depending on risk/complexity).

[mkilchhofer]

@rumstead Not sure whether a collection cherry-pick is desired here.

But if so, I'd merge it using a merge commit rather than a squash merge so we have all the atomic commits (with its context) on the 3.2 release branch as well.

[choejwoo]

Hi, @mkilchhofer.
I’ve opened #25225 to resolve cherry pick conflict problem since I was the original author of this change, could you please take a look when you get a chance?
I’ve updated the work, so I’d appreciate your review. Thanks!

[mkilchhofer]

Hi @choejwoo

Does it make sense in your opinion to just cherry-pick one PR?

Anyways, I'll be happy in any case

1. either pull-in/cherry-pick all 4 mentioned PRs via my PR
2. just pull in your change regarding the overlapping bubbles

[choejwoo]

Hi @choejwoo

Does it make sense in your opinion to just cherry-pick one PR?

Anyways, I'll be happy in any case

1. either pull-in/cherry-pick all 4 mentioned PRs via my PR
2. just pull in your change regarding the overlapping bubbles

Yes, originally my PR contained atomic changes, but before it was merged, a new feature overlapping with my code was added, which caused the conflict.
After checking, I found that the conflicting part doesn’t exist in the release-3.2 branch, so I cherry-picked only my PR and removed the conflicting parts that came from the master merged code. So, I think it would be okay to go with the second one.
I also verified locally that my changes are working properly!

[mkilchhofer]

Okay with that. 👍

What I wanted to bring up is that maybe someone else want to backport the other changes as well and then it would be easier if all changes are cherry-picked in the same order as on master branch :)

Since there are no API changes or changes to the proto files, I dont see an issue in pulling all those to the next 3.2 patch release.

Let the decision take the maintainers of Argo CD which PR they accept 🤷‍♂️