I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this to a parser aggregation pr honestly.
On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (shane.m.ard...@gmail.com) wrote: Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > help. > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release ourselves, I > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then release. > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago and > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the commit > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. The > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more time > to get it in. > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and quick > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as they > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be merged > to the master. > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for 0.8.0. > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > The wall of text version: > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > different reasons. > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > performance-based > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly run > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because of > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning > off > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing > anything > > here? > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be > involved > > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you > > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? This > > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc problem. > > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser and create > the > > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special because it runs on > > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first impression > > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved > documentation. > > > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could mostly be > resolved > > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, and telling > how > > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is primarily bug > > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this problem is a > > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would support improving > > the documentation, both full-dev and for aggregation in general for the > > 0.7.1 point release, while making a 0.8.0 release contingent upon the > > outstanding PRs to enable it in the management UI. > > > > There are a couple deeper issues, imo, that I care substantially more > about > > than this in particular > > * The dev environment is being used as our intro for users, because it's > > convenient for us to not maintain more environments (which has been a > major > > pain point in the past). Worse, the dev environment strongly implies it's > > for Metron developers, rather than people looking to build on top of > > Metron. We need an actual strategy for providing end users a clean > > impression of Metron (this could be clarifying what the expectations of > > full dev are, renaming it to something like "full-demo", something more > > involved, etc.). This is something that we've needed for awhile in > general, > > and includes larger topics like improving our website, potentially > > improving the site book, actually publishing our Javadocs somewhere so > > people can develop things easier, publishing out info about Stellar > > functions in a better manner, etc. > > * The fact that parsers are handled in Ambari at all. It's awful and > leads > > to situations like this. To the best of my knowledge, once we can do > > chaining and aggregation in the Management UI, we should be able to > > entirely divorce these two overlapping domains. I'd love to see parsers > > ripped out of Ambari, then full-dev manages all the setup via REST. At > that > > point, we can easily tell everyone to just use the management UI. > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:23 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I think it would help if the full consequences of having the UI show > the > > > wrong status where listed. > > > > > > Someone trying metron, will, by default , see the wrong thing in the UI > > for > > > the ONLY sensors they have that are running and doing data. > > > > > > What happens when they try to start them to make them work? One, two or > > > all? > > > What happens when he edits them or try to add transformations? One, two > > or > > > all? > > > What other things can you do with the sensors in the ui? What happens? > > > > > > Are we recommending aggregation on the list and elsewhere for users? > Are > > > we recommending something that is going to ensure they get into this > > > situation? > > > > > > I think this is more than ‘just the wrong thing shown’ in the ui. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On April 30, 2019 at 20:48:10, Michael Miklavcic ( > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > The vote for RC1 did not pass and I'd like to kickstart some discussion > > > about what we should do. > > > > > > I started taking a look at PR#1360 and it looks like this isn't quite > as > > > close to being able go in as I had originally expected. I want to talk > > > about options here. It seems to me that we can: > > > > > > 1. Wait for PR#1360 to go in, but this is likely going to take more > time > > > than originally anticipated > > > 2. Accept the issue in full dev, but add some notes in the developer > > > docs about the current feature gap and why sensors aren't showing > status > > in > > > the management UI when aggregation is enabled. > > > 3. Find some other workable UI solution. > > > 4. Other option? > > > > > > All things considered, I'm personally leaning towards #2 in the > > short-term, > > > but I think we should probably talk about this a bit before deciding > what > > > RC2 should be. > > > > > > Best, > > > Mike > > > > > >
