feat: Added examples to the documentation demonstrating different ways to handle ports

[osamaahmed17]

Added examples to the documentation demonstrating different ways to handle ports
feat: #227

[github-actions]

🎉 Welcome to the Kubeflow SDK! 🎉

Thanks for opening your first PR! We're happy to have you as part of our community 🚀

Here's what happens next:

• If you haven't already, please check out our Contributing Guide for repo-specific guidelines and the Kubeflow Contributor Guide for general community standards
• Our team will review your PR soon! cc @kubeflow/kubeflow-sdk-team

Join the community:

• Slack: Join our #kubeflow-ml-experience and #kubeflow-trainer Slack channels
• Meetings: Attend the Kubeflow SDK and ML Experience bi-weekly meetings

Feel free to ask questions in the comments if you need any help or clarification!
Thanks again for contributing to Kubeflow! 🙏

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 21829319438

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• 21 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.008%) to 67.528%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
kubeflow/trainer/backends/kubernetes/utils.py	21	77.64%

Totals
Change from base Build 21410511236:	0.008%
Covered Lines:	2770
Relevant Lines:	4102

---

💛 - Coveralls

[osamaahmed17]

@andreyvelich and @jonburdo, kindly review the code and let me know if anything is missing.
All tasks are completed only one remains, waiting for the new model registry version.

[osamaahmed17]

Hi @jonburdo and @andreyvelich
Kindly review this PR when you get a chance.
Thank you

[jonburdo]

/lgtm
/approve
/hold

This looks great! I'm approving but adding a hold, since we haven't yet released model-registry version 0.3.6, which is required for this.

If another approver wants to go ahead and merge this, feel free to /unhold. We should have 0.3.6 very soon.

I have tested that this works as expected as follows:

old behavior

(model-registry==0.3.5)

With model-registry==0.3.5 (uv pip install '.[hub]') passing these urls:

http://localhost:9080
https://test.example.com:8443

Tries to connect to:

http://localhost:9080:8080
https://test.example.com:8443:443

because this older version of model-registry assumes the port will be passed separately and does f"{server_address}:{port}"

new behavior

(model-registry commit 338563d27a4b4dafde985eb8978bb070bf8631af)

With model-registry's current main branch (uv pip install '.[hub]' ~/src/model-registry/clients/python) passing the same urls, now works as expected:

http://localhost:9080
https://test.example.com:8443

Example session:

>>> from kubeflow.hub import ModelRegistryClient

>>> ModelRegistryClient("http://localhost:9080")
aiohttp.client_exceptions.ClientConnectorDNSError: Cannot connect to host test.example.com:8443 ssl:default [No address associated with hostname]

>>> ModelRegistryClient("https://test.example.com:8443", is_secure=False)
aiohttp.client_exceptions.ClientConnectorError: Cannot connect to host localhost:9080 ssl:default [Multiple exceptions: [Errno 111] Connect call failed ('::1', 9080, 0, 0), [Errno 111] Connect call failed ('127.0.0.1', 9080)]

[jonburdo]

Ah, we will also need to wait for the min python version of this project to be updated to python 3.10 since model-registry==0.3.6 supports 3.10 and later

[jonburdo]

With the bump to python 3.10 and to model-registry 0.3.6, this should be good to go!

• chore!: upgrade to Python 3.10 #282
• chore: bump minimum model-registry version to 0.3.6 #289

/unhold
/cc @kramaranya @andreyvelich @szaher

[osamaahmed17]

@jonburdo, how do we merge the code, is there a direct command that I can do for future cases?

[jonburdo]

@jonburdo, how do we merge the code, is there a direct command that I can do for future cases?

@osamaahmed17 We'll need an approval from someone in the approvers section of OWNERS. For changes that only touch files under kubeflow/hub, an approver in kubeflow/hub/OWNERS should be able to approve, but this PR touches the README.md too. For more info see the link the last google-oss-prow comment above: #243 (comment)

I hope someone can review it soon, but feel free to mention that this PR could use a review in the slack channels. See github-actions comment above: #243 (comment)

[andreyvelich]

Thank you @osamaahmed17!
/lgtm
/approve

[google-oss-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: andreyvelich, jonburdo

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [andreyvelich]

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