> On April 28, 2016, 6:20 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> > src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/controllers.js, line 139
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/diff/1/?file=1365181#file1365181line139>
> >
> >     I am not too keen on having a column for an optional field that will 
> > most likely read 'default' for all jobs. Perhaps postpone its introduction 
> > until TaskConfig.tier is required?
> 
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>     I thought that leaving it blank would raise more questions for most users 
> who did not use tiers at all (basically the same point that Joshua raised 
> above).
>     
>     I'll leave it blank and we can address that if the need arises.
> 
> Joshua Cohen wrote:
>     I'd be ok with just not shipping this change until TaskConfig.tier is 
> required and users are actually aware of it.
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
>     I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field in 
> user configurations?

> I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field in 
> user configurations?

That is correct! :)

To put this change in perspective, as was previously agreed upon:
1. Aurora users should *never* be required to specify a tier if the default 
tier suffices for their use. This behavior is similar to how the production 
flag is defaulted to false.
2. The definition of a default tier is managed by the cluster operator since 
the tier definition file now requires explicitly selecting a "default" tier in 
the tier configuration file.

Given the above, the thought was that making the tier visible in the UI would 
help socialize the tier concept as well as provide the insight that a 'default' 
tier was in use even when the job configuration did not explicitly specify a 
tier.

There's 2 other changes I intend to make shortly that will help clarify this 
from the users' perspective:
1. AURORA-1656 "Document tier concept" (filed by serb): I intend to add 
documentation regarding how the user could get visibility into the tier used 
for their active jobs. I figured having the UI in place would make that easier.
2. AURORA-1686 "Provide visibility into available tiers" (filed moments ago, by 
me): This will allow hyperlinking the displayed tier to the tier configuration 
page so that users get better informed about the implication of their tier 
selection.

Let me know if this sounds like a reasonable approach to proceed with.


- Amol


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/#review131028
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 28, 2016, 7:54 p.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 28, 2016, 7:54 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and Maxim Khutornenko.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> AURORA-1458: Add tier into the UI "show config" summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/configSummary.html 
> 1af7511de0e8a143c8ea88377aad756b44e3ac30 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/controllers.js 
> 84417ebeadfae57d55b9f12e8a985825bd620fc8 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/services.js 
> d9ce52065f9573b0aa68a95da7da7c50fb14310a 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/schedulingDetail.html 
> eb88c1e6dec7a26643e8b13ffcf8e90df70a67f7 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ensured the changes appear in the UI after launching the scheduler using 
> vagrant.
> 
> 
> File Attachments
> ----------------
> 
> Jobs by Role
>   
> https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/04/29/6e58d26d-e77c-49fe-85e0-ee1acae3efe0__Jobs_by_Role.png
> Per Job Config Summary
>   
> https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/04/29/8a666fe7-9a35-427f-b1ee-f41e5413059d__Per_Job_Config_Summary.png
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Amol Deshmukh
> 
>

Reply via email to