> On April 29, 2016, 1:20 a.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? > > Amol Deshmukh wrote: > > 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. > > Maxim Khutornenko wrote: > > I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field > in user configurations? > > Right, this is my understanding as well. By 'required' I meant the > non-empty thrift value, not user configuration. > > I am still under opinion we should not over-advertise the Tier concept > until we set the default tier in the client (and/or populate it in the > scheduler). When we do that, I'd rather see the real assigned tier (e.g. > 'preemtible') instead of an anonymous 'default' one. I think having a job > config Tier entry should be enough of introduction into the Tier concept at > this point without spooking our users by a new Tier column filled with a > meaningless 'default' or otherwise completely empty. > > Bill Farner wrote: > > By 'required' I meant the non-empty thrift value, not user > configuration. > > Slight tangent, but you should consider leaving the thrift value blank as > well. Otherwise, it seems like it would be difficult for an operator to > change the default and have it apply to previously-created jobs. > > Amol Deshmukh wrote: > Ah, we were just discussing this very aspect here, internally. I think at > this point, the discussion/recommendation would be best captured in the gdoc > for this feature. For now I will: > 1. Park this review. > 2. Update the gdoc for tier management and send out a notification on the > dev list. > > Stephan Erb wrote: > The discussion seems to have stalled. How do we want to proceed?
I have updated the dev thread and suggest we postpone this change until the proposed changes are implemented: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1erszT-HsWf1zCIfhbqHlsotHxWUvDyI2xUwNQQQxLgs/edit# - Maxim ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/#review131028 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 29, 2016, 2:54 a.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 29, 2016, 2:54 a.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 > >
