Yes, I agree. which is the status of the audit component? On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 1:18 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < [email protected]> wrote:
> Mining data audit from my point of view. We have extra data for nodes. We > can include those inputs if needed > > El mar, 23 abr 2024, 13:11, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > [email protected]> escribió: > > > And now a pretty questionable metric that was requested and that I feel > it > > belongs to the audit domain, but let's discuss it ;) > > There is a user that wants to know the number of times a certain > parameter > > has been passed with a certain value to a workflow type (a process id). > > Since we do not really have the concept of parameter as is (it is just a > > field in a POJO for BPMN and a propert in a JSON for SWF), I was thinking > > on providing a custom module to cope with that request to not change the > > default ones, but maybe we can think of a way to adding that metric in a > > general way. > > One idea might be to add a counter with three tags (process-id, parameter > > name and parameter value). The issue here is what we understood as a > > parameter. > > Any idea is welcome (even to rule out the possibility and defer to custom > > metrics extensions) > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:59 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, I was thinking something like that. > > > In the parser, add a metadata key ("Metric"?) to the node you want to > > > record duration for. > > > In the monitoring addon, check for that metadata key and if there, add > > the > > > duration of that node to the metric. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:54 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I would say is not bad idea but I would restrict per node. Usually you > > >> dont > > >> want to store information about a script or a transformation.... > Maybe a > > >> rest call or a service to keep taps on them. I would something like. > > >> > > >> Metadata on the node for signaling you want to meassure time > > >> Metrics per process id - node maybe min, max, average ? > > >> > > >> Wdyt ? > > >> > > >> > > >> El mar, 23 abr 2024, 11:17, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > >> [email protected]> escribió: > > >> > > >> > Hi Enrique, I was wondering if we should go further (using a > different > > >> > issue) and add an additional DistributionSummary " > > >> > kogito_node_instance_duration_seconds" to track node execution > > duration, > > >> > similar to already existing > > "kogito_process_instance_duration_seconds" > > >> and > > >> > "kogito_work_item_duration_seconds", wdyt? > > >> > I think such a summary should only be enabled explicitly through > > >> > configuration, because the number of records is potentially too > high. > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:47 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > The proposal is sensible as it will fit more what the user has in > > the > > >> > > data index/audit... so we won't have problems regarding data that > > does > > >> > > not fit among sources. > > >> > > +1 to me. > > >> > > > > >> > > One of the things that we should be aware of is related to > > >> > > clustering... one process can start in one node.... and can be > > >> > > completed in other. This should be kept in mind. > > >> > > > > >> > > El lun, 22 abr 2024 a las 14:56, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > >> > > (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > While implementing the proposal, I faced an issue that forced me > > to > > >> > amend > > >> > > > it https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1101 > to > > >> keep > > >> > it > > >> > > > aligned with the existing monitoring collection approach. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:53 AM Fabrizio Antonangeli < > > >> > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > +1 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:46 PM ricardo zanini fernandes < > > >> > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > +1 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:56 PM Pere Fernandez < > > >> > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > El dv., 19 d’abr. 2024, 18:06, Francisco Javier Tirado > > Sarti < > > >> > > > > > > [email protected]> va escriure: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > > > > Let me know if there is any problem with the proposal in > > >> this > > >> > > issue > > >> > > > > > > > < > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1101 > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > description. > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
