I would like to describe quickly *our approach to breaking down Parser Aggregation PR for smaller chunks*
*1. we squashed the commits in the original development branch* - when we started to open smaller PRs from the commits from the original branch, we found ourself opening PRs out of historical states of the code instead of the final one - none of those states of development are worth (or make sense) to be reviewed (initial phases of development are included in the original commit history, multiple iterations of refactoring, etc.) - while the actual development history was irrelevant, the attribution aspect of it was still important *2. we divided** the changes by the original authors* - the original contributors were sardell, ruffle1986 and tiborm - we isolated the changes that belong to each individual contributor *3. each of us identified smaller but belonging changesets * - with this, we ended up opening 5 PRs from tiborm, 3 from sardell and 6 from ruffle1986 - each of these are smaller than 500 lines of changes, which makes the task of reviewing easier - they have their own context and purpose described by the PR and the related Jira ticket *4. Each PR introduces a single new commit which is meant to be reviewed* - with this we were able to open PRs on top of each others work, but the reviewer is still able to identify what changes were introduced and described by the pr simply by focusing on the last commit - the commit introduced by the PR has the same commit message as the title of the PR to make it easier to find *5. Only the last PR is meant to be merged into the feature branch* - the last PR also introduces a single new commit to being reviewed - this contains all the commits from the previous PRs that belong to parser aggregation - it builds fine in Travis - it's fully functional and ready to being tested against full dev - If we only merge the last PR, we don't have to rebase and recreate all of our PRs due to merge conflicts that will result from to conflicting histories (which is common in feature branch work) Once all the Pull Requests are open, I will submit a list of all of them to this discussion thread. On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:58 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > You need to be a committer, that is all I think. > I would not use the github UI for it though, I do it through the cli > > > > On May 8, 2019 at 09:45:24, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com > ) > wrote: > > Not that I'm aware of. Nick and Otto, you've created them before, did you > need any special perms? > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:57 AM Shane Ardell <shane.m.ard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > This morning, we started to break down our work as Michael suggested in > > this thread. However, it looks like I don't have permission to create a > new > > branch in the GitHub UI or push a new branch to the apache/metron repo. > Is > > this action restricted to PMC members only? > > > > Shane > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:06 AM Tamás Fodor <ftamas.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Here's the process we've gone through in order to implement the > feature. > > > > > > At the beginning we had some bootstrap work like creating a mock API > > > (written in NodeJS) because we were a few steps ahead the backend part. > > But > > > this is in a totally different repository so it doesn't really count. > We > > > also had to wire NgRX, our chosen 3rd party that supports the flux flow > > to > > > get a better state management. When we were ready to kick off > > implementing > > > the business logic in, we splited up the work by subfeatures like drag > > and > > > dropping table rows. At this point, we created a POC without NgRX just > to > > > let you have the feeling of how it works in real life. Later on, after > > > introducing NgRX, we had to refactor it a little bit obviously to make > it > > > compatible with NgRX. There were other subfeatures like creating and > > > editing groups in a floating pane on the right side of the window. > > > When the real backend API was ready we made the necessary changes and > > > tested whether it worked how it was expected. There were a few > difference > > > between how we originally planned the API and the current > implementation > > so > > > we had to adapt it accordingly. While we were implementing the > features, > > we > > > wrote the unit tests simultaneously. The latest task on the feature was > > > restricting the user from aggregating parsers together. > > > > > > As a first iteration, we've decided to put the restriction in because > it > > > requires a bigger effort on the backend to deal with that. In my > opinion, > > > we should get rid of the restriction because it's not intuitive and > very > > > inconvenient. In my opinion, we should let the users to aggregate the > > > running parsers together and do the job to handle this edge case on the > > > backend accordingly. > > > > > > What do you think, guys? > > > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > > > Tamas > > > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:34 PM Michael Miklavcic < > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > This was my expectation as well. > > > > > > > > Shane, Tibor, Tamas - how did you go about breaking this down into > > chunks > > > > and/or microchunks when you collaborated offline? As Nick mentioned, > > you > > > > obviously split up work and shared it amongst yourselves. Some > > > explanation > > > > around this process would be helpful for reviewers as well. We might > be > > > > able to provide better guidance and examples to future contributors > as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > I talked a little bit with Shane about this offline last week. It > looks > > > > like you guys effectively ran a local feature branch. Replicating > that > > > > process in a feature branch in Apache is probably what you guys > should > > > > be doing for a change this size. We don't have hard limits on line > > change > > > > size, but in the past it's been somewhere around 2k-3k lines and > above > > > > being the tipping point for discussing a feature branch. Strictly > > > speaking, > > > > line quantity alone is not the only metric, but it's relevant here. > If > > > you > > > > want to make smaller incremental changes locally, there's nothing to > > keep > > > > you from doing that - I would only advise that you consider squashing > > > those > > > > commits (just ask if you're unclear about how to handle that) into a > > > single > > > > larger commit/chunk when you're ready to publish them as a chunk to > the > > > > public feature branch. So it would look something like this: > > > > > > > > Commits by person locally > > > > Shane: 1,2,3 -> squash as A > > > > Tibor: 4,5,6 -> squash as B > > > > Tamas: 7,8,9 -> squash as C > > > > > > > > Commits by person in Apache > > > > Shane: A > > > > Tibor: B > > > > Tamas: C > > > > > > > > We need to maintain a record of attribution. Your real workflow may > not > > > be > > > > that cleanly delineated, but you can choose how you want to squash in > > > those > > > > cases. Even in public collaboration, there are plenty of cases where > > > folks > > > > submit PRs against PRs, abstain from accepting attribution, and it > all > > > gets > > > > squashed down into one person's final PR commit. There are many > > options. > > > > > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 8:19 AM Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Have you considered creating a feature branch for the effort? This > > > would > > > > > allow you to break the effort into chunks, where the result of each > > PR > > > > may > > > > > not be a fully working "master-ready" result. > > > > > > > > > > I am sure you guys tackled the work in chunks when developing it, > so > > > > > consider just replaying those chunks onto the feature branch as > > > separate > > > > > PRs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 5:24 AM Tibor Meller < > tibor.mel...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I wondered on the weekend how we could split that PR to smaller > > > chunks. > > > > > > That PR is a result of almost 2 months of development and I don't > > see > > > > how > > > > > > to split that to multiple WORKING parts. It is as it is a whole > > > working > > > > > > feature. If we split it by packages or files we could provide > > smaller > > > > > > non-functional PR's, but can end up having a broken Management UI > > > after > > > > > > having the 1st PR part merged into master. I don't think that > would > > > be > > > > > > acceptable by the community (or even by me) so I would like to > > > suggest > > > > > two > > > > > > other option to help review PR#1360. > > > > > > > > > > > > #1 We could extend that PR with our own author comments in > Github. > > > That > > > > > > would help following which code part belongs to where and why it > > was > > > > > > necessary. > > > > > > #2 We can schedule an interactive code walkthrough call with the > > ones > > > > who > > > > > > interested in reviewing or the particular changeset. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please share your thoughts on this! Which version would support > you > > > the > > > > > > best? Or if you have any other idea let us know. > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: I think the size of our PR's depends on how small > independently > > > > > > deliverable changesets we can identify before we starting to > > > implement > > > > a > > > > > > relatively big new feature. Unfortunately, we missed to do that > > with > > > > this > > > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:49 PM Shane Ardell < > > > shane.m.ard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > NgRx was only used for the aggregation feature and doesn't go > > > beyond > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > I think the way I worded that sentence may have caused > > confusion. I > > > > > just > > > > > > > meant we use it to manage more pieces of state within the > > > aggregation > > > > > > > feature than just previous and current state of grouped > parsers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:32 AM Michael Miklavcic < > > > > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shane, thanks for putting this together. The updates on the > > Jira > > > > are > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (we used it for more than just that in this feature, but > that > > > was > > > > > the > > > > > > > > initial reasoning) > > > > > > > > What are you using NgRx for in the submitted work that goes > > > beyond > > > > > the > > > > > > > > aggregation feature? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:22 PM Shane Ardell < > > > > > shane.m.ard...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to discussions in the 0.7.1 release thread, I > > > wanted > > > > to > > > > > > > > start a > > > > > > > > > thread regarding the parser aggregation work for the > > Management > > > > UI. > > > > > > For > > > > > > > > > anyone who has not already read and tested the PR locally, > > I've > > > > > > added a > > > > > > > > > detailed description of what we did and why to the JIRA > > ticket > > > > > here: > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1856 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering what the community thinks about what we've > > built > > > > thus > > > > > > > far. > > > > > > > > Do > > > > > > > > > you see anything missing that must be part of this new > > feature > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > UI? > > > > > > > > > Are there any strong objections to how we implemented it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m also looking to see if anyone has any thoughts on how > we > > > can > > > > > > > possibly > > > > > > > > > simplify this PR. Right now it's pretty big, and there are > a > > > lot > > > > of > > > > > > > > commits > > > > > > > > > to parse through, but I'm not sure how we could break this > > work > > > > out > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > separate, smaller PRs opened against master. We could try > to > > > > > > > cherry-pick > > > > > > > > > the commits into smaller PRs and then merge them into a > > feature > > > > > > branch, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if that's worth the effort since that will > only > > > > reduce > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > number commits to review, not the lines changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As an aside, I also want to give a little background into > the > > > > > > > > introduction > > > > > > > > > of NgRx in this PR. To give a little background on why we > > chose > > > > to > > > > > do > > > > > > > > this, > > > > > > > > > you can refer to the discussion thread here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We previously discussed introducing a better way to manage > > > > > > application > > > > > > > > > state in both UIs in that thread. It was decided that NgRx > > was > > > a > > > > > > great > > > > > > > > tool > > > > > > > > > for many reasons, one of them being that we can piecemeal > it > > > into > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > application rather than doing a huge rewrite of all the > > > > application > > > > > > > state > > > > > > > > > at once. The contributors in this PR (myself included) > > decided > > > > this > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > be a perfect opportunity to introduce NgRx into the > > Management > > > UI > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > need to manage the previous and current state with the > > grouping > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > that users can undo the changes they've made (we used it > for > > > more > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > that in this feature, but that was the initial reasoning). > In > > > > > > addition, > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > greatly benefited from this when it came time to debug our > > work > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > > (the discussion in the above thread link goes a little more > > > into > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > advantages of debugging with NgRx and DevTools). Removing > > NgRx > > > > from > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > work would reduce the numbers of lines changed slightly, > but > > it > > > > > would > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > be a big PR and a lot of that code would just move to the > > > > component > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > service level in the Angular application. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
