On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Andrew Wilkins < [email protected]> wrote:
> +1 on collapsing repeats. I'd also prefer to add more data to status so > that we can collapse entries, rather than dropping data so that we > don't/can't see it in history. > > What do we base "sensible filtering" on? Exact match on message isn't > enough for download messages, obviously, and I'd be very hesitant to bake > in any knowledge of specific message formats. > Yeah, message formats would be a pretty poor basis for similarity. IIANM, our status entries can carry additional data which we don't render. > If we add the concept of overarching operations to status entries (e.g. > each "image download progress" entry is part of the "image download" > operation), then we could collapse all adjacent entries within that > operation. This could be a simple string in the status data; or we could > extend the status schema. Either way. > YANM :). I'm pretty sure that adding a value to status data is the easiest approach; and, given that we can't change all the code at once, I think it's also better to have the maybe-present value explicitly in the status-data-bag rather than part of the schema (and hence subtly implied to be more reliable than it actually is). Thoughts? Cheers William
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
