Whether or not full dev is, first and foremost, "dev" I think your questions being up a good point. If not full_dev for introducing new users, then what? If we want to provide a different env for letting people tinker and try it out than we do for development, that's completely fine. But we don't have that right now. So we can treat full_dev as multipurpose, or we can stop directing non-devs to it, or we can add something new. I honestly don't have any recommendations here. We've talked about docker instances for replacing in-memory components, but I'm still not sure that solves this problem, or adds more complexity. Given the current options on the table, I'm inclined to go with "full_dev" serves both dev and demo purposes. Otto, what do you think?
On Thu, May 2, 2019, 4:32 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> >
