I’ve commented on the PR, and I won’t repeat it here as well, I will however ask again if we know and can list all of the usability issues that surround this problem. IE. All the things that can happen or may happen for people who are not Metron developers and committers who are using full dev, because we keep recommending it.
On May 2, 2019 at 17:38:30, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: PR is up. I added the doc change to the metron-deployment README since this serves as the gateway doc for all the VM instances. All of which would be affected by the feature gap. https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1398 On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:37 PM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's the ticket I created to track it, which also references the Jira > for the new UI feature. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2100 > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> :-) >> >> I expect to have #2 out sometime today. >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > >>> > I personally >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and >>> Casey at >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. >>> > >>> >>> +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. >>> >>> >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with >>> the >>> > release. This is that discussion. >>> >>> >>> I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading what >>> you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more >>> seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the >>> initial >>> "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took as >>> a >>> couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying >>> things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far down >>> in >>> the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. >>> >>> Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. >>> >>> Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right >>> now >>> (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): >>> >>> - Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 >>> for 0.8.0. >>> - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what >>> he >>> thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to >>> see what >>> his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. >>> - Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 >>> - After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we >>> proceed normally and cut RC2. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < >>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I think your later point about using a project release version, from >>> the >>> > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that >>> point, a >>> > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through >>> testing >>> > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. >>> Which was >>> > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published >>> release. We >>> > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, >>> it >>> > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev >>> box, >>> > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came from >>> our >>> > discussion about it. >>> > >>> > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was that >>> > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it >>> > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I >>> personally >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and >>> Casey at >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New >>> > information about that feature has changed my mind about what to do >>> about >>> > it in the short term. I think we should move forward. >>> > >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with >>> the >>> > release. This is that discussion. >>> > >>> > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > @Mike >>> > > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying >>> a >>> > > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? >>> > > >>> > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we >>> had >>> > > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have >>> gone >>> > > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just >>> > > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the >>> > > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, >>> > there's >>> > > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes >>> > > important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked >>> > > myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value that a >>> > release >>> > > isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No, we have >>> enough >>> > > value to do a meaningful release". >>> > > >>> > > I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we find issues >>> > that >>> > > are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value anymore, >>> but to >>> > be >>> > > entirely honest, I'm absolutely shocked this issue has blown up so >>> much. >>> > > However, if you want to have a discuss thread to reevaluate if it's >>> > > worthwhile to do a release, go for it. The communities' calculus on >>> the >>> > > "Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't >>> worthwhile?" >>> > may >>> > > be different than mine. >>> > > >>> > > Having said all that, to a large extent, I think you're right. It >>> really >>> > > doesn't matter* that much* if we release next week or the week after >>> or >>> > > whenever. But at the same time I personally get super frustrated >>> when I >>> > go >>> > > to use a project, find a bug, it's already known and fixed, but it >>> just >>> > > never puts out a released version. Every cutoff is largely >>> arbitrary, >>> > but >>> > > I think getting our improvements and fixes out there is important. >>> One of >>> > > the things we've done fairly well is put out releases at a fairly >>> decent >>> > > cadence for a project this large. I really don't want to set the >>> > precedent >>> > > of just increasingly pushing out point releases for stuff like this. >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:52 PM Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > I think any open source project needs to strive to cut releases >>> > > regularly. >>> > > > This is healthy for the project and community. It gets new >>> features >>> > and >>> > > > functionality out to the community so we can get feedback, find >>> what is >>> > > > working and what is not, iterate and improve. You probably agree >>> with >>> > > > this. >>> > > > >>> > > > While releasing this week or next may not matter in the grand >>> scheme, >>> > if >>> > > we >>> > > > want to cut releases regularly, then we need to bear down and just >>> do >>> > it. >>> > > > Case in point, I opened the initial discussion for this release on >>> > March >>> > > > 13th [1] and it is now May 2nd and we have yet to release 7 weeks >>> > later. >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > [1] >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4f58649139f0aa6276f96febe1d0ecf9e6b3fb5b2b088cba1e3c4d81@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 AM Michael Miklavcic < >>> > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure >>> to >>> > > push >>> > > > > out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue >>> with >>> > > > option >>> > > > > 2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a >>> reason >>> > > why >>> > > > we >>> > > > > think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? >>> > Otto >>> > > > > pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm >>> > unclear >>> > > > why >>> > > > > we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on >>> > this, >>> > > > > imho. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler < >>> ottobackwa...@gmail.com> >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > 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 >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
