> On Aug. 25, 2015, 6:42 p.m., David McLaughlin wrote: > > What if they click on an old update and the instance page doesn't reflect > > the change made in this instance event? Do we care? > > Joshua Cohen wrote: > I don't think we care, there's not much we can do in that case, is there? > The only thing I can think of is disabling links for completed updates, but > that seems overly broad (some completed updates will link to instances that > still exist). > > David McLaughlin wrote: > Right. I'm just concerned people click on the link to see what happened > on that instance event. I know it's what I would expect, given it's the only > link and the first column on the row too. > > Basically it comes down - the instance page you added is a 'live' view of > that instance. It is potentially misleading to include that link on a table > that deals exclusively with historical data.
Yeah, I understand that, I'm just not sure what the alternative is other than not linking at all (which seems worse to me)? As far as I can see there's no association between an instance in an update and an actual task id (which would let us query to see if the scheduler still has a record of that task existing before displaying the link). That said, even if we *could* conditionally display the link, that might be even more confusing as it would be feasible that only *some* tasks from a historical update have been purged, while others might still remain, leading to a strange inconsistency on the update page where only some instances are links, while others are not. As far as I see it we have three options: 1) Always link to the instance page. 2) Only link to the instance page for active updates. 3) Never link to the instance page. Option 1 seems like the best option in that it provides an easy way to see what happened for an update, and in most likely cases (debugging an active or recently completed update) should provide useful data (though admittedly could prove to be confusing in the cases where the task that was part of an update has already been pruned). - Joshua ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37761/#review96394 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 25, 2015, 3:01 p.m., Joshua Cohen wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/37761/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 3:01 p.m.) > > > Review request for Aurora, David McLaughlin and Zameer Manji. > > > Bugs: AURORA-1331 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1331 > > > Repository: aurora > > > Description > ------- > > Add a link to the instance page from instance events on the update page. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/update.html > 3750aab342e326fc34d254dbfce791da0ca05ec6 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37761/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > See screenshot. > > > File Attachments > ---------------- > > Look, the instance numbers are blue, because they're links! > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2015/08/25/b0dc6715-be1a-4a81-992f-caf2efd847a6__Screen_Shot_2015-08-25_at_9.59.50_AM.png > > > Thanks, > > Joshua Cohen > >
