Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
Starting the default parsers as an aggregated topology was introduced when we added support for the PCAP Topology [1], as a workaround to the limited supervisor slots available in full dev. At that point, the full effect of the change should have been determined. It also warranted a DISCUSS thread before we went ahead with the change. It was a mistake on my part and I apologize. In the interim, we could free up slots on the full dev by stopping lesser user topologies (e.g. PCAP) so that the default parsers can be started as individual topologies. This can be a temporary solution till such time the UI support for parser aggregation comes through. How does this sound? -Anand [1] https://tinyurl.com/y4yoeszo On 5/3/19, 4:23 AM, "Michael Miklavcic" wrote: Whether or not full dev is, first and foremost, "dev" I think your questions being up a good point. If not full_dev for introducing new users, then what? If we want to provide a different env for letting people tinker and try it out than we do for development, that's completely fine. But we don't have that right now. So we can treat full_dev as multipurpose, or we can stop directing non-devs to it, or we can add something new. I honestly don't have any recommendations here. We've talked about docker instances for replacing in-memory components, but I'm still not sure that solves this problem, or adds more complexity. Given the current options on the table, I'm inclined to go with "full_dev" serves both dev and demo purposes. Otto, what do you think? On Thu, May 2, 2019, 4:32 PM Otto Fowler wrote: > I’ve commented on the PR, and I won’t repeat it here as well, I will > however ask again if we know and can list all of the usability issues that > surround this problem. IE. All the things that can happen or may happen > for people who are not Metron developers and committers who are using > full dev, because we keep recommending it. > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 17:38:30, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com > ) > wrote: > > PR is up. I added the doc change to the metron-deployment README since this > serves as the gateway doc for all the VM instances. All of which would be > affected by the feature gap. > > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1398 > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:37 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Here's the ticket I created to track it, which also references the Jira > > for the new UI feature. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2100 > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Michael Miklavcic < > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> :-) > >> > >> I expect to have #2 out sometime today. > >> > >> On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet > wrote: > >> > >>> > > >>> > I personally > >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and > >>> Casey at > >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. > >>> > > >>> > >>> +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. > >>> > >>> > >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with > >>> the > >>> > release. This is that discussion. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading > what > >>> you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more > >>> seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the > >>> initial > >>> "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took > as > >>> a > >>> couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying > >>> things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far > down > >>> in > >>> the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. > >>> > >>> Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. > >>> > >>> Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right > >>> now > >>> (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): > >>> > >>> - Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 > >>> for 0.8.0. > >>> - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what > >>> he > >>> thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to > >>> see what > >>> his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. > >>> - Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 > >>> - After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we > >>> proceed normally and cut RC2. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < > >>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I think your later point about
Re: [VOTE] Update dev guidelines with format for sharing architecture source files and rendered images
i am ok with it as long as we are not forcing people to buy stuff 02.05.2019, 18:18, "Michael Miklavcic" : > Here's the latest discussion on the subject: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aa2b0b9ed4a0f0b0d8bb018c618e62de196565f9af71f347e504076@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > I'd like to propose a vote to change our dev guidelines which will clarify > the tooling we use to produce diagrams and share the source files for those > diagrams. I propose the dev guidelines > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines and > PR checklist > https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md#for-documentation-related-changes > be > changed in the following ways: > > 1. Under "1.1 Contributing A Code Change" > 1. Change <<"New features and significant bug fixes should be > documented in the JIRA and appropriate architecture diagrams should be > attached. Major features may require a vote.">> to <<"New features > and significant bug fixes should be documented in the JIRA. Appropriate > architecture diagrams should be created in https://www.draw.io/ > and committed > to source control as per section 2.4. Diagrams may be requested of PR > submitters during review either as documentation or as an aid to the > reviewer. Major features may also require a vote.">> > 2. Under "2.4 Documentation" > 1. New line item <<"Diagrams - We save architecture diagram source > files in an xml format rendered by draw.io (instructions below). This > is the free tool of choice that we've agreed to use for exchanging > diagrams and their source files in Metron.">> > 2. New line item < "/images-source" and rendered diagrams and images belong in > "/images." > 3. New subsection <<"Creating and Modifying Diagrams">>. This section > would provide basic instructions for downloading source files from > draw.io. > 3. Add a new checkbox item under PR checklist heading "For documentation > related changes" with the following text > 1. Have you ensured that any documentation diagrams have been > updated, along with their source files, using draw.io? See > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines > for > instructions. > 4. Here is the Jira for migrating/redoing existing diagrams > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2099 > > We require a minimum of 72 hours for a vote, not typically including > weekend days. I'd like to leave this vote open until Wednesday 5/8, 12PM > EDT. Please vote +1, -1, or 0 to abstain, and also indicate if your vote is > binding or non-binding. --- Thank you, James Sirota PMC- Apache Metron jsirota AT apache DOT org
[VOTE] Update dev guidelines with format for sharing architecture source files and rendered images
Here's the latest discussion on the subject: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aa2b0b9ed4a0f0b0d8bb018c618e62de196565f9af71f347e504076@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E I'd like to propose a vote to change our dev guidelines which will clarify the tooling we use to produce diagrams and share the source files for those diagrams. I propose the dev guidelines https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines and PR checklist https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md#for-documentation-related-changes be changed in the following ways: 1. Under "1.1 Contributing A Code Change" 1. Change <<"New features and significant bug fixes should be documented in the JIRA and appropriate architecture diagrams should be attached. Major features may require a vote.">> to <<"New features and significant bug fixes should be documented in the JIRA. Appropriate architecture diagrams should be created in https://www.draw.io/ and committed to source control as per section 2.4. Diagrams may be requested of PR submitters during review either as documentation or as an aid to the reviewer. Major features may also require a vote.">> 2. Under "2.4 Documentation" 1. New line item <<"Diagrams - We save architecture diagram source files in an xml format rendered by draw.io (instructions below). This is the free tool of choice that we've agreed to use for exchanging diagrams and their source files in Metron.">> 2. New line item >. This section would provide basic instructions for downloading source files from draw.io. 3. Add a new checkbox item under PR checklist heading "For documentation related changes" with the following text 1. Have you ensured that any documentation diagrams have been updated, along with their source files, using draw.io? See https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines for instructions. 4. Here is the Jira for migrating/redoing existing diagrams 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2099 We require a minimum of 72 hours for a vote, not typically including weekend days. I'd like to leave this vote open until Wednesday 5/8, 12PM EDT. Please vote +1, -1, or 0 to abstain, and also indicate if your vote is binding or non-binding.
Re: [DISCUSS] Parser Aggregation in Management UI
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 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 >
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
Whether or not full dev is, first and foremost, "dev" I think your questions being up a good point. If not full_dev for introducing new users, then what? If we want to provide a different env for letting people tinker and try it out than we do for development, that's completely fine. But we don't have that right now. So we can treat full_dev as multipurpose, or we can stop directing non-devs to it, or we can add something new. I honestly don't have any recommendations here. We've talked about docker instances for replacing in-memory components, but I'm still not sure that solves this problem, or adds more complexity. Given the current options on the table, I'm inclined to go with "full_dev" serves both dev and demo purposes. Otto, what do you think? On Thu, May 2, 2019, 4:32 PM Otto Fowler wrote: > I’ve commented on the PR, and I won’t repeat it here as well, I will > however ask again if we know and can list all of the usability issues that > surround this problem. IE. All the things that can happen or may happen > for people who are not Metron developers and committers who are using > full dev, because we keep recommending it. > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 17:38:30, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com > ) > wrote: > > PR is up. I added the doc change to the metron-deployment README since this > serves as the gateway doc for all the VM instances. All of which would be > affected by the feature gap. > > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1398 > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:37 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Here's the ticket I created to track it, which also references the Jira > > for the new UI feature. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2100 > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Michael Miklavcic < > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> :-) > >> > >> I expect to have #2 out sometime today. > >> > >> On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet > wrote: > >> > >>> > > >>> > I personally > >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and > >>> Casey at > >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. > >>> > > >>> > >>> +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. > >>> > >>> > >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with > >>> the > >>> > release. This is that discussion. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading > what > >>> you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more > >>> seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the > >>> initial > >>> "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took > as > >>> a > >>> couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying > >>> things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far > down > >>> in > >>> the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. > >>> > >>> Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. > >>> > >>> Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right > >>> now > >>> (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): > >>> > >>> - Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 > >>> for 0.8.0. > >>> - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what > >>> he > >>> thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to > >>> see what > >>> his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. > >>> - Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 > >>> - After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we > >>> proceed normally and cut RC2. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < > >>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I think your later point about using a project release version, from > >>> the > >>> > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that > >>> point, a > >>> > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through > >>> testing > >>> > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. > >>> Which was > >>> > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published > >>> release. We > >>> > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, > >>> it > >>> > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev > >>> box, > >>> > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came > from > >>> our > >>> > discussion about it. > >>> > > >>> > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was > that > >>> > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it > >>> > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I > >>> personally > >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and > >>> Casey at > >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New > >>> > information about that feature has changed my
Re: [DISCUSS] Parser Aggregation in Management UI
I have commented the jira. On May 2, 2019 at 14:22:41, 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
I’ve commented on the PR, and I won’t repeat it here as well, I will however ask again if we know and can list all of the usability issues that surround this problem. IE. All the things that can happen or may happen for people who are not Metron developers and committers who are using full dev, because we keep recommending it. On May 2, 2019 at 17:38:30, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: PR is up. I added the doc change to the metron-deployment README since this serves as the gateway doc for all the VM instances. All of which would be affected by the feature gap. https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1398 On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:37 PM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's the ticket I created to track it, which also references the Jira > for the new UI feature. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2100 > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> :-) >> >> I expect to have #2 out sometime today. >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet wrote: >> >>> > >>> > I personally >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and >>> Casey at >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. >>> > >>> >>> +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. >>> >>> >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with >>> the >>> > release. This is that discussion. >>> >>> >>> I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading what >>> you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more >>> seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the >>> initial >>> "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took as >>> a >>> couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying >>> things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far down >>> in >>> the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. >>> >>> Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. >>> >>> Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right >>> now >>> (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): >>> >>> - Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 >>> for 0.8.0. >>> - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what >>> he >>> thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to >>> see what >>> his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. >>> - Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 >>> - After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we >>> proceed normally and cut RC2. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < >>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I think your later point about using a project release version, from >>> the >>> > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that >>> point, a >>> > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through >>> testing >>> > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. >>> Which was >>> > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published >>> release. We >>> > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, >>> it >>> > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev >>> box, >>> > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came from >>> our >>> > discussion about it. >>> > >>> > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was that >>> > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it >>> > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I >>> personally >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and >>> Casey at >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New >>> > information about that feature has changed my mind about what to do >>> about >>> > it in the short term. I think we should move forward. >>> > >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with >>> the >>> > release. This is that discussion. >>> > >>> > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > @Mike >>> > > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying >>> a >>> > > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? >>> > > >>> > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we >>> had >>> > > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have >>> gone >>> > > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just >>> > > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the >>> > > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, >>> > there's >>> > > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes >>> > > important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked >>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Dev guideline changes for architecture diagrams
+1, great job Mike On May 2, 2019 at 18:06:28, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: I thought it might be useful as a more general purpose bucket, and it's how we refer to the image files in the site-book generation. Also, there may be things that might not qualify as a diagram, but have some value. A few README's use screenshots. Here's an example: 1. https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/master/metron-deployment/Kerberos-ambari-setup.md 2. https://github.com/apache/metron/tree/master/metron-deployment/readme-images . What do you think? On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:19 AM Otto Fowler wrote: > I’m all set with this, but for one question, why image and image-source as > opposed to diagram and diagram source? Isn’t it more descriptive? Is > there another reason ( like for doc gen )? > > > > On May 1, 2019 at 20:12:47, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com > ) > wrote: > > Picking up where things left off in the VOTE thread on the subject, > I'm presenting a revision to my original proposal below. I'd like to get > this signed off on before submitting it for another vote. Otto, picking up > where we left off, let me know if this looks good to you. > > I'd like to propose a vote to change our dev guidelines which will clarify > the tooling we use to produce diagrams and share the source files for those > diagrams. The original discuss thread is noted at the end of this email. I > propose the dev guidelines > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines > and > PR checklist > > https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md#for-documentation-related-changes > be > changed in the following ways: > > 1. Under "1.1 Contributing A Code Change" > 1. Change <<"New features and significant bug fixes should be > documented in the JIRA and appropriate architecture diagrams should be > attached. Major features may require a vote.">> to <<"New features > and significant bug fixes should be documented in the JIRA. Appropriate > architecture diagrams should be created in https://www.draw.io/ > and committed > to source control as per section 2.4. Diagrams may be requested of PR > submitters during review either as documentation or as an aid to the > reviewer. Major features may also require a vote.">> > 2. Under "2.4 Documentation" > 1. New line item <<"Diagrams - We save architecture diagram source > files in an xml format rendered by draw.io (instructions below). This > is the free tool of choice that we've agreed to use for exchanging > diagrams and their source files in Metron.">> > 2. New line item < "/images-source" and rendered diagrams and images belong in > "/images." > 3. New subsection <<"Creating and Modifying Diagrams">>. This section > would provide basic instructions for downloading source files from > draw.io. > 3. Add a new checkbox item under PR checklist heading "For documentation > related changes" with the following text > 1. Have you ensured that any documentation diagrams have been > updated, along with their source files, using draw.io? See > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines > for > instructions. > 4. Here is the Jira for migrating/redoing existing diagrams > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2099 > > > > - Original DISCUSS thread - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3ae02f1e32044b1a7648899700d44611aefdab6caa09fb3196292425@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > - Original VOTE thread - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c41dca65a46354c161d58caa7c79cfac6758f437b6638d12bd5c5622@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E >
Re: [DISCUSS] Dev guideline changes for architecture diagrams
I thought it might be useful as a more general purpose bucket, and it's how we refer to the image files in the site-book generation. Also, there may be things that might not qualify as a diagram, but have some value. A few README's use screenshots. Here's an example: 1. https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/master/metron-deployment/Kerberos-ambari-setup.md 2. https://github.com/apache/metron/tree/master/metron-deployment/readme-images . What do you think? On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:19 AM Otto Fowler wrote: > I’m all set with this, but for one question, why image and image-source as > opposed to diagram and diagram source? Isn’t it more descriptive? Is > there another reason ( like for doc gen )? > > > > On May 1, 2019 at 20:12:47, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com > ) > wrote: > > Picking up where things left off in the VOTE thread on the subject, > I'm presenting a revision to my original proposal below. I'd like to get > this signed off on before submitting it for another vote. Otto, picking up > where we left off, let me know if this looks good to you. > > I'd like to propose a vote to change our dev guidelines which will clarify > the tooling we use to produce diagrams and share the source files for those > diagrams. The original discuss thread is noted at the end of this email. I > propose the dev guidelines > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines > and > PR checklist > > https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md#for-documentation-related-changes > be > changed in the following ways: > > 1. Under "1.1 Contributing A Code Change" > 1. Change <<"New features and significant bug fixes should be > documented in the JIRA and appropriate architecture diagrams should be > attached. Major features may require a vote.">> to <<"New features > and significant bug fixes should be documented in the JIRA. Appropriate > architecture diagrams should be created in https://www.draw.io/ > and committed > to source control as per section 2.4. Diagrams may be requested of PR > submitters during review either as documentation or as an aid to the > reviewer. Major features may also require a vote.">> > 2. Under "2.4 Documentation" > 1. New line item <<"Diagrams - We save architecture diagram source > files in an xml format rendered by draw.io (instructions below). This > is the free tool of choice that we've agreed to use for exchanging > diagrams and their source files in Metron.">> > 2. New line item < "/images-source" and rendered diagrams and images belong in > "/images." > 3. New subsection <<"Creating and Modifying Diagrams">>. This section > would provide basic instructions for downloading source files from > draw.io. > 3. Add a new checkbox item under PR checklist heading "For documentation > related changes" with the following text > 1. Have you ensured that any documentation diagrams have been > updated, along with their source files, using draw.io? See > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines > for > instructions. > 4. Here is the Jira for migrating/redoing existing diagrams > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2099 > > > > - Original DISCUSS thread - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3ae02f1e32044b1a7648899700d44611aefdab6caa09fb3196292425@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > - Original VOTE thread - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c41dca65a46354c161d58caa7c79cfac6758f437b6638d12bd5c5622@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E >
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
> As a separate issue, I will also volunteer to see if I can help Tamas find the discuss thread mentioned. It should be linked to the PR or feature branch for reference. That may also be a gap in dev guidelines that should be spelled out. Just following up on this. I checked and verified we have existing recommendations around discussion threads for new features, so no immediate tasks to tackle there - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines " 1.1 Contributing A Code Change ... If you are introducing a completely new feature or API it is a good idea to start a discussion and get consensus on the basic design first. Larger changes should be discussed on the dev boards before submission. New features and significant bug fixes should be documented in the JIRA and appropriate architecture diagrams should be attached. Major features may require a vote. Note that if the change is related to user-facing protocols / interface / configs, etc, you need to make the corresponding change on the documentation as well. " Per the new DISCUSS thread and Jira updates from Shane ( https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ad206bdd59594cf74560770dfdbfcde0addd120d6fa8ea73f1a92a6b@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E) it looks like we're in good shape for referencing past discussions for this feature and have any remaining gaps being covered. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:31 AM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am still in favor of option 2. I will volunteer and submit the doc PR. I > agree we should not rush through a review process for a maintenance > release. The implications to the UI, as Otto asked, are that aggregated > parsers will not show up in the UI. You cannot create them there. Actually, > any parser not created through the UI (eg CLI) will not show up in the UI, > aggregated or not. > > As a separate issue, I will also volunteer to see if I can help Tamas find > the discuss thread mentioned. It should be linked to the PR or feature > branch for reference. That may also be a gap in dev guidelines that should > be spelled out. > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 7:17 AM Nick Allen wrote: > >> To echo Justin's comments, I am in favor of #2, which provides a clear, >> well-defined path to a release. >> >>- Why hold back a release, especially a point release containing 89 >>improvements, for one issue that will not affect most users? >> >> >>- It is one thing to stall a release to address a bug of limited scope, >>where a fix is well understood and ready for review, but it is >> completely >>another issue to delay for this. >> >> >>- I don't see a set of reviewable PRs yet that will push this over the >>finish line. As has been noted, there were fundamental problems with >> #1360 >>(which has now been closed) that would have prevented adequate review >> by >>the community. >> >> >>- Why drive this issue with the pressure of a stalled release, instead >>of just releasing the fix when it is ready and has been adequately >>reviewed? Swarming on an issue does not often produce quality results. >> >> For those in favor of #1, can someone please provide a clear outline of >> what the fix looks-like? How many PRs will this require? When are these >> PRs likely to be ready? Who is driving this? Tamás has already commented >> that this not a quick fix. This path is very murky to me, but maybe I am >> just ignorant on this. >> >> I would also urge other committers and users who don't have a binding vote >> on the release to share their opinion on the path forward. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:17 AM Otto Fowler >> wrote: >> >> > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really >> > help. >> > >> > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something >> > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would >> > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a >> > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). >> > >> > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release >> ourselves, I >> > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then >> release. >> > >> > >> > >> > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: >> > >> > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new >> > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago >> and >> > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the >> > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the >> commit >> > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, >> > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. >> The >> > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more >> time >> > to get it in. >> > >> > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
PR is up. I added the doc change to the metron-deployment README since this serves as the gateway doc for all the VM instances. All of which would be affected by the feature gap. https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1398 On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:37 PM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's the ticket I created to track it, which also references the Jira > for the new UI feature. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2100 > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> :-) >> >> I expect to have #2 out sometime today. >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet wrote: >> >>> > >>> > I personally >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and >>> Casey at >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. >>> > >>> >>> +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. >>> >>> >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with >>> the >>> > release. This is that discussion. >>> >>> >>> I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading what >>> you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more >>> seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the >>> initial >>> "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took as >>> a >>> couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying >>> things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far down >>> in >>> the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. >>> >>> Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. >>> >>> Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right >>> now >>> (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): >>> >>>- Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 >>>for 0.8.0. >>> - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what >>> he >>> thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to >>> see what >>> his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. >>>- Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 >>>- After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we >>>proceed normally and cut RC2. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < >>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I think your later point about using a project release version, from >>> the >>> > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that >>> point, a >>> > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through >>> testing >>> > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. >>> Which was >>> > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published >>> release. We >>> > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, >>> it >>> > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev >>> box, >>> > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came from >>> our >>> > discussion about it. >>> > >>> > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was that >>> > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it >>> > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I >>> personally >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and >>> Casey at >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New >>> > information about that feature has changed my mind about what to do >>> about >>> > it in the short term. I think we should move forward. >>> > >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with >>> the >>> > release. This is that discussion. >>> > >>> > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > @Mike >>> > > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying >>> a >>> > > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? >>> > > >>> > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we >>> had >>> > > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have >>> gone >>> > > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just >>> > > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the >>> > > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, >>> > there's >>> > > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes >>> > > important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked >>> > > myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value that a >>> > release >>> > > isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No, we have >>> enough >>> > > value to do a meaningful release". >>> > > >>> > > I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we find issues >>> > that >>> > > are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value anymore,
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
Here's the ticket I created to track it, which also references the Jira for the new UI feature. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2100 On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > :-) > > I expect to have #2 out sometime today. > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet wrote: > >> > >> > I personally >> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and >> Casey at >> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. >> > >> >> +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. >> >> >> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with >> the >> > release. This is that discussion. >> >> >> I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading what >> you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more >> seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the >> initial >> "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took as a >> couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying >> things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far down >> in >> the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. >> >> Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. >> >> Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right now >> (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): >> >>- Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 >>for 0.8.0. >> - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what >> he >> thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to >> see what >> his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. >>- Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 >>- After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we >>proceed normally and cut RC2. >> >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < >> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I think your later point about using a project release version, from the >> > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that >> point, a >> > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through >> testing >> > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. Which >> was >> > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published >> release. We >> > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, it >> > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev box, >> > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came from >> our >> > discussion about it. >> > >> > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was that >> > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it >> > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I >> personally >> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and >> Casey at >> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New >> > information about that feature has changed my mind about what to do >> about >> > it in the short term. I think we should move forward. >> > >> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with >> the >> > release. This is that discussion. >> > >> > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet >> wrote: >> > >> > > @Mike >> > > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying a >> > > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? >> > > >> > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we >> had >> > > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have >> gone >> > > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just >> > > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the >> > > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, >> > there's >> > > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes >> > > important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked >> > > myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value that a >> > release >> > > isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No, we have >> enough >> > > value to do a meaningful release". >> > > >> > > I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we find issues >> > that >> > > are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value anymore, but >> to >> > be >> > > entirely honest, I'm absolutely shocked this issue has blown up so >> much. >> > > However, if you want to have a discuss thread to reevaluate if it's >> > > worthwhile to do a release, go for it. The communities' calculus on >> the >> > > "Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't >> worthwhile?" >> > may >> > > be different than mine. >> > > >> > > Having said all that, to a large extent, I think you're
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
:-) I expect to have #2 out sometime today. On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet wrote: > > > > I personally > > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and Casey > at > > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. > > > > +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. > > > > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with the > > release. This is that discussion. > > > I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading what > you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more > seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the initial > "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took as a > couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying > things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far down in > the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. > > Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. > > Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right now > (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): > >- Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 >for 0.8.0. > - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what he > thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to see > what > his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. >- Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 >- After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we >proceed normally and cut RC2. > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think your later point about using a project release version, from the > > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that point, > a > > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through > testing > > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. Which > was > > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published release. > We > > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, it > > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev box, > > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came from > our > > discussion about it. > > > > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was that > > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it > > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I personally > > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and Casey > at > > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New > > information about that feature has changed my mind about what to do about > > it in the short term. I think we should move forward. > > > > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with the > > release. This is that discussion. > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet wrote: > > > > > @Mike > > > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying a > > > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? > > > > > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we had > > > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have > gone > > > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just > > > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the > > > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, > > there's > > > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes > > > important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked > > > myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value that a > > release > > > isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No, we have enough > > > value to do a meaningful release". > > > > > > I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we find issues > > that > > > are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value anymore, but > to > > be > > > entirely honest, I'm absolutely shocked this issue has blown up so > much. > > > However, if you want to have a discuss thread to reevaluate if it's > > > worthwhile to do a release, go for it. The communities' calculus on > the > > > "Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't worthwhile?" > > may > > > be different than mine. > > > > > > Having said all that, to a large extent, I think you're right. It > really > > > doesn't matter* that much* if we release next week or the week after or > > > whenever. But at the same time I personally get super frustrated when I > > go > > > to use a project, find a bug, it's already known and fixed, but it just > > > never puts out a released version. Every cutoff is largely arbitrary, > > but > > > I think getting our improvements
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
> > I personally > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and Casey at > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. > +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with the > release. This is that discussion. I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading what you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the initial "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took as a couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far down in the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right now (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): - Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 for 0.8.0. - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what he thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to see what his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. - Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 - After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we proceed normally and cut RC2. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think your later point about using a project release version, from the > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that point, a > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through testing > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. Which was > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published release. We > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, it > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev box, > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came from our > discussion about it. > > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was that > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I personally > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and Casey at > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New > information about that feature has changed my mind about what to do about > it in the short term. I think we should move forward. > > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with the > release. This is that discussion. > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet wrote: > > > @Mike > > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying a > > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? > > > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we had > > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have gone > > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just > > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the > > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, > there's > > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes > > important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked > > myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value that a > release > > isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No, we have enough > > value to do a meaningful release". > > > > I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we find issues > that > > are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value anymore, but to > be > > entirely honest, I'm absolutely shocked this issue has blown up so much. > > However, if you want to have a discuss thread to reevaluate if it's > > worthwhile to do a release, go for it. The communities' calculus on the > > "Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't worthwhile?" > may > > be different than mine. > > > > Having said all that, to a large extent, I think you're right. It really > > doesn't matter* that much* if we release next week or the week after or > > whenever. But at the same time I personally get super frustrated when I > go > > to use a project, find a bug, it's already known and fixed, but it just > > never puts out a released version. Every cutoff is largely arbitrary, > but > > I think getting our improvements and fixes out there is important. One of > > the things we've done fairly well is put out releases at a fairly decent > > cadence for a project this large. I really don't want to set the > precedent > > of just increasingly pushing out point releases for stuff like this. > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:52
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
I think your later point about using a project release version, from the example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that point, a community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through testing that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. Which was argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published release. We discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, it sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev box, others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came from our discussion about it. The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was that this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I personally don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and Casey at the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New information about that feature has changed my mind about what to do about it in the short term. I think we should move forward. Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with the release. This is that discussion. On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet wrote: > @Mike > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying a > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we had > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have gone > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, there's > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes > important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked > myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value that a release > isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No, we have enough > value to do a meaningful release". > > I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we find issues that > are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value anymore, but to be > entirely honest, I'm absolutely shocked this issue has blown up so much. > However, if you want to have a discuss thread to reevaluate if it's > worthwhile to do a release, go for it. The communities' calculus on the > "Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't worthwhile?" may > be different than mine. > > Having said all that, to a large extent, I think you're right. It really > doesn't matter* that much* if we release next week or the week after or > whenever. But at the same time I personally get super frustrated when I go > to use a project, find a bug, it's already known and fixed, but it just > never puts out a released version. Every cutoff is largely arbitrary, but > I think getting our improvements and fixes out there is important. One of > the things we've done fairly well is put out releases at a fairly decent > cadence for a project this large. I really don't want to set the precedent > of just increasingly pushing out point releases for stuff like this. > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:52 PM Nick Allen wrote: > > > I think any open source project needs to strive to cut releases > regularly. > > This is healthy for the project and community. It gets new features and > > functionality out to the community so we can get feedback, find what is > > working and what is not, iterate and improve. You probably agree with > > this. > > > > While releasing this week or next may not matter in the grand scheme, if > we > > want to cut releases regularly, then we need to bear down and just do it. > > Case in point, I opened the initial discussion for this release on March > > 13th [1] and it is now May 2nd and we have yet to release 7 weeks later. > > > > -- > > [1] > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4f58649139f0aa6276f96febe1d0ecf9e6b3fb5b2b088cba1e3c4d81@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 AM Michael Miklavcic < > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure to > push > > > out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue with > > option > > > 2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a reason > why > > we > > > think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? Otto > > > pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm unclear > > why > > > we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on this, > > > imho. > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler > > wrote: > > > > > > > I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this > to > > a > > > > parser aggregation pr honestly. > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
@Mike I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying a release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we had enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have gone into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, there's been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No, we have enough value to do a meaningful release". I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we find issues that are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value anymore, but to be entirely honest, I'm absolutely shocked this issue has blown up so much. However, if you want to have a discuss thread to reevaluate if it's worthwhile to do a release, go for it. The communities' calculus on the "Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't worthwhile?" may be different than mine. Having said all that, to a large extent, I think you're right. It really doesn't matter* that much* if we release next week or the week after or whenever. But at the same time I personally get super frustrated when I go to use a project, find a bug, it's already known and fixed, but it just never puts out a released version. Every cutoff is largely arbitrary, but I think getting our improvements and fixes out there is important. One of the things we've done fairly well is put out releases at a fairly decent cadence for a project this large. I really don't want to set the precedent of just increasingly pushing out point releases for stuff like this. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:52 PM Nick Allen wrote: > I think any open source project needs to strive to cut releases regularly. > This is healthy for the project and community. It gets new features and > functionality out to the community so we can get feedback, find what is > working and what is not, iterate and improve. You probably agree with > this. > > While releasing this week or next may not matter in the grand scheme, if we > want to cut releases regularly, then we need to bear down and just do it. > Case in point, I opened the initial discussion for this release on March > 13th [1] and it is now May 2nd and we have yet to release 7 weeks later. > > -- > [1] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4f58649139f0aa6276f96febe1d0ecf9e6b3fb5b2b088cba1e3c4d81@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 AM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure to push > > out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue with > option > > 2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a reason why > we > > think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? Otto > > pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm unclear > why > > we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on this, > > imho. > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler > wrote: > > > > > I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this to > a > > > parser aggregation pr honestly. > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (shane.m.ard...@gmail.com) > > wrote: > > > > > > Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back: > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler > > > wrote: > > > > > > > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would > really > > > > help. > > > > > > > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > > > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that > would > > > > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui > was > > a > > > > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > > > > > > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release > > ourselves, > > > I > > > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > > > > > > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a > > new > > > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months > ago > > > and > > > > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > > > > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the > > > commit > > > > history. After you
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
I think any open source project needs to strive to cut releases regularly. This is healthy for the project and community. It gets new features and functionality out to the community so we can get feedback, find what is working and what is not, iterate and improve. You probably agree with this. While releasing this week or next may not matter in the grand scheme, if we want to cut releases regularly, then we need to bear down and just do it. Case in point, I opened the initial discussion for this release on March 13th [1] and it is now May 2nd and we have yet to release 7 weeks later. -- [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4f58649139f0aa6276f96febe1d0ecf9e6b3fb5b2b088cba1e3c4d81@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 AM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure to push > out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue with option > 2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a reason why we > think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? Otto > pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm unclear why > we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on this, > imho. > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler wrote: > > > I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this to a > > parser aggregation pr honestly. > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (shane.m.ard...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > > > Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back: > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler > > wrote: > > > > > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > > > help. > > > > > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would > > > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was > a > > > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > > > > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release > ourselves, > > I > > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a > new > > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago > > and > > > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > > > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the > > commit > > > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > > > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. > > The > > > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more > > time > > > to get it in. > > > > > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and > > quick > > > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as > > they > > > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > > > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be > > merged > > > to the master. > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet > > wrote: > > > > > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for > > 0.8.0. > > > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > > > > > The wall of text version: > > > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > > > different reasons. > > > > > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" > environment > > > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > > > performance-based > > > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly > > run > > > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to > be > > > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because > > of > > > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us > turning > > > off > > > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > > > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > > > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing > > > anything > > > > here? > > > > > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in > a > > > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be > > > involved > > > > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you > > > > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? > This > > > > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
A separate [DISCUSSION] thread on Parser Aggregation support for the Management UI is coming later today. We collecting all the previous threads there which belongs to this feature and it's implementation. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 6:32 PM Tibor Meller wrote: > I also favor option 2. I also feel it is good to highlight we are not > facing with an issue on the UI with a fix in PR#1360. > Parser aggregation had turned on for the three default parser without > having parser aggregation support added to the UI. > PR#1360 contains a whole new feature with about 6000 lines of code > changes. Which I think hold a fair amount of risk for regression. > I suggest considering this PR more than a simple patch for the parser > issue introduced in our previous release. > This is probably the biggest feature on the UI in the last one year. > Therefore am not even sure it belongs to a patch release like 0.7.x instead > of 0.8.0. > The latest version of the REST API with parser aggregation just came out > yesterday so we were able to start another round of testing. > I already identified three minor bugs. Some of them (if not all) have to > be fixed before we can consider this PR done. > Long story short: am also against the pressure to pushing this PR out ASAP. > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure to push >> out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue with option >> 2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a reason why >> we >> think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? Otto >> pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm unclear >> why >> we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on this, >> imho. >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler wrote: >> >> > I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this to a >> > parser aggregation pr honestly. >> > >> > >> > On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (shane.m.ard...@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> > >> > Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back: >> > >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E >> > >> > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler >> > wrote: >> > >> > > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would >> really >> > > help. >> > > >> > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something >> > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that >> would >> > > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui >> was a >> > > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). >> > > >> > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release >> ourselves, >> > I >> > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then >> > release. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> > > >> > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a >> new >> > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months >> ago >> > and >> > > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the >> > > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the >> > commit >> > > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature >> itself, >> > > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. >> > The >> > > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more >> > time >> > > to get it in. >> > > >> > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and >> > quick >> > > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as >> > they >> > > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we >> > > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be >> > merged >> > > to the master. >> > > >> > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for >> > 0.8.0. >> > > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. >> > > > >> > > > The wall of text version: >> > > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely >> > > > different reasons. >> > > > >> > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" >> environment >> > > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a >> > > performance-based >> > > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are >> regularly >> > run >> > > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to >> be >> > > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is >> because >> > of >> > > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us >> turning >> > > off >> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
I also favor option 2. I also feel it is good to highlight we are not facing with an issue on the UI with a fix in PR#1360. Parser aggregation had turned on for the three default parser without having parser aggregation support added to the UI. PR#1360 contains a whole new feature with about 6000 lines of code changes. Which I think hold a fair amount of risk for regression. I suggest considering this PR more than a simple patch for the parser issue introduced in our previous release. This is probably the biggest feature on the UI in the last one year. Therefore am not even sure it belongs to a patch release like 0.7.x instead of 0.8.0. The latest version of the REST API with parser aggregation just came out yesterday so we were able to start another round of testing. I already identified three minor bugs. Some of them (if not all) have to be fixed before we can consider this PR done. Long story short: am also against the pressure to pushing this PR out ASAP. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure to push > out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue with option > 2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a reason why we > think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? Otto > pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm unclear why > we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on this, > imho. > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler wrote: > > > I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this to a > > parser aggregation pr honestly. > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (shane.m.ard...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > > > Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back: > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler > > wrote: > > > > > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > > > help. > > > > > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would > > > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was > a > > > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > > > > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release > ourselves, > > I > > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a > new > > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago > > and > > > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > > > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the > > commit > > > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > > > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. > > The > > > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more > > time > > > to get it in. > > > > > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and > > quick > > > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as > > they > > > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > > > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be > > merged > > > to the master. > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet > > wrote: > > > > > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for > > 0.8.0. > > > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > > > > > The wall of text version: > > > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > > > different reasons. > > > > > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" > environment > > > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > > > performance-based > > > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly > > run > > > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to > be > > > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because > > of > > > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us > turning > > > off > > > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > > > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > > > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing > > > anything > > > > here? > > > > > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in > a > > > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure to push out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue with option 2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a reason why we think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? Otto pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm unclear why we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on this, imho. On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler wrote: > I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this to a > parser aggregation pr honestly. > > > On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (shane.m.ard...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler > wrote: > > > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > > help. > > > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would > > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a > > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release ourselves, > I > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then > release. > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago > and > > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the > commit > > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. > The > > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more > time > > to get it in. > > > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and > quick > > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as > they > > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be > merged > > to the master. > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet > wrote: > > > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for > 0.8.0. > > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > > > The wall of text version: > > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > > different reasons. > > > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment > > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > > performance-based > > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly > run > > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be > > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because > of > > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning > > off > > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing > > anything > > > here? > > > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a > > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be > > involved > > > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you > > > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? This > > > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc > problem. > > > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser and create > > the > > > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special because it runs > on > > > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first impression > > > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved > > documentation. > > > > > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could mostly be > > resolved > > > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, and telling > > how > > > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is primarily bug > > > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this problem is a > > > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would support > improving > > > the documentation, both full-dev and for aggregation in general for the > > > 0.7.1 point release, while making a 0.8.0 release contingent upon the > > > outstanding PRs to enable it in the management UI. > > > > > > There are a couple deeper issues, imo, that I
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related this to a parser aggregation pr honestly. On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (shane.m.ard...@gmail.com) wrote: Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler wrote: > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > help. > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release ourselves, I > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then release. > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago and > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the commit > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. The > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more time > to get it in. > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and quick > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as they > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be merged > to the master. > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet wrote: > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for 0.8.0. > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > The wall of text version: > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > different reasons. > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > performance-based > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly run > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because of > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning > off > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing > anything > > here? > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be > involved > > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you > > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? This > > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc problem. > > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser and create > the > > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special because it runs on > > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first impression > > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved > documentation. > > > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could mostly be > resolved > > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, and telling > how > > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is primarily bug > > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this problem is a > > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would support improving > > the documentation, both full-dev and for aggregation in general for the > > 0.7.1 point release, while making a 0.8.0 release contingent upon the > > outstanding PRs to enable it in the management UI. > > > > There are a couple deeper issues, imo, that I care substantially more > about > > than this in particular > > * The dev environment is being used as our intro for users, because it's > > convenient for us to not maintain more environments (which has been a > major > > pain point in the past). Worse, the dev environment strongly implies it's > > for Metron developers, rather than people looking to build on top of > > Metron. We need an actual strategy for providing end users a clean > > impression of Metron (this could be clarifying what the expectations of > > full dev are, renaming it to something like "full-demo", something more > > involved, etc.). This is something that we've needed for awhile in > general, > > and includes larger topics like
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
FWIW, I'm in favor of 2. I think it's a relatively minor bug and the impact is limited. I do agree that it should be a blocker for 0.8.0 though. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:31 AM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am still in favor of option 2. I will volunteer and submit the doc PR. I > agree we should not rush through a review process for a maintenance > release. The implications to the UI, as Otto asked, are that aggregated > parsers will not show up in the UI. You cannot create them there. Actually, > any parser not created through the UI (eg CLI) will not show up in the UI, > aggregated or not. > > As a separate issue, I will also volunteer to see if I can help Tamas find > the discuss thread mentioned. It should be linked to the PR or feature > branch for reference. That may also be a gap in dev guidelines that should > be spelled out. > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 7:17 AM Nick Allen wrote: > > > To echo Justin's comments, I am in favor of #2, which provides a clear, > > well-defined path to a release. > > > >- Why hold back a release, especially a point release containing 89 > >improvements, for one issue that will not affect most users? > > > > > >- It is one thing to stall a release to address a bug of limited > scope, > >where a fix is well understood and ready for review, but it is > > completely > >another issue to delay for this. > > > > > >- I don't see a set of reviewable PRs yet that will push this over the > >finish line. As has been noted, there were fundamental problems with > > #1360 > >(which has now been closed) that would have prevented adequate review > by > >the community. > > > > > >- Why drive this issue with the pressure of a stalled release, instead > >of just releasing the fix when it is ready and has been adequately > >reviewed? Swarming on an issue does not often produce quality > results. > > > > For those in favor of #1, can someone please provide a clear outline of > > what the fix looks-like? How many PRs will this require? When are these > > PRs likely to be ready? Who is driving this? Tamás has already > commented > > that this not a quick fix. This path is very murky to me, but maybe I am > > just ignorant on this. > > > > I would also urge other committers and users who don't have a binding > vote > > on the release to share their opinion on the path forward. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:17 AM Otto Fowler > > wrote: > > > > > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > > > help. > > > > > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that > would > > > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was > a > > > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > > > > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release > ourselves, > > I > > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a > new > > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago > > and > > > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > > > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the > > commit > > > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > > > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. > > The > > > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more > > time > > > to get it in. > > > > > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and > > quick > > > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as > > they > > > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > > > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be > > merged > > > to the master. > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet > > wrote: > > > > > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for > > 0.8.0. > > > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > > > > > The wall of text version: > > > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > > > different reasons. > > > > > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" > environment > > > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > > > performance-based > > > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly > > run > > > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to > be > > > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because > > of > > > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us >
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
I am still in favor of option 2. I will volunteer and submit the doc PR. I agree we should not rush through a review process for a maintenance release. The implications to the UI, as Otto asked, are that aggregated parsers will not show up in the UI. You cannot create them there. Actually, any parser not created through the UI (eg CLI) will not show up in the UI, aggregated or not. As a separate issue, I will also volunteer to see if I can help Tamas find the discuss thread mentioned. It should be linked to the PR or feature branch for reference. That may also be a gap in dev guidelines that should be spelled out. On Thu, May 2, 2019, 7:17 AM Nick Allen wrote: > To echo Justin's comments, I am in favor of #2, which provides a clear, > well-defined path to a release. > >- Why hold back a release, especially a point release containing 89 >improvements, for one issue that will not affect most users? > > >- It is one thing to stall a release to address a bug of limited scope, >where a fix is well understood and ready for review, but it is > completely >another issue to delay for this. > > >- I don't see a set of reviewable PRs yet that will push this over the >finish line. As has been noted, there were fundamental problems with > #1360 >(which has now been closed) that would have prevented adequate review by >the community. > > >- Why drive this issue with the pressure of a stalled release, instead >of just releasing the fix when it is ready and has been adequately >reviewed? Swarming on an issue does not often produce quality results. > > For those in favor of #1, can someone please provide a clear outline of > what the fix looks-like? How many PRs will this require? When are these > PRs likely to be ready? Who is driving this? Tamás has already commented > that this not a quick fix. This path is very murky to me, but maybe I am > just ignorant on this. > > I would also urge other committers and users who don't have a binding vote > on the release to share their opinion on the path forward. > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:17 AM Otto Fowler > wrote: > > > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > > help. > > > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would > > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a > > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release ourselves, > I > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then > release. > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago > and > > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the > commit > > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. > The > > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more > time > > to get it in. > > > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and > quick > > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as > they > > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be > merged > > to the master. > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet > wrote: > > > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for > 0.8.0. > > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > > > The wall of text version: > > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > > different reasons. > > > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment > > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > > performance-based > > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly > run > > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be > > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because > of > > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning > > off > > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing > > anything > > > here? > > > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a > > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be > > involved > > > given the lack of easy configuration for
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
To echo Justin's comments, I am in favor of #2, which provides a clear, well-defined path to a release. - Why hold back a release, especially a point release containing 89 improvements, for one issue that will not affect most users? - It is one thing to stall a release to address a bug of limited scope, where a fix is well understood and ready for review, but it is completely another issue to delay for this. - I don't see a set of reviewable PRs yet that will push this over the finish line. As has been noted, there were fundamental problems with #1360 (which has now been closed) that would have prevented adequate review by the community. - Why drive this issue with the pressure of a stalled release, instead of just releasing the fix when it is ready and has been adequately reviewed? Swarming on an issue does not often produce quality results. For those in favor of #1, can someone please provide a clear outline of what the fix looks-like? How many PRs will this require? When are these PRs likely to be ready? Who is driving this? Tamás has already commented that this not a quick fix. This path is very murky to me, but maybe I am just ignorant on this. I would also urge other committers and users who don't have a binding vote on the release to share their opinion on the path forward. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:17 AM Otto Fowler wrote: > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > help. > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release ourselves, I > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then release. > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago and > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the commit > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. The > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more time > to get it in. > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and quick > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as they > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be merged > to the master. > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet wrote: > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for 0.8.0. > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > The wall of text version: > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > different reasons. > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > performance-based > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly run > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because of > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning > off > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing > anything > > here? > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be > involved > > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you > > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? This > > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc problem. > > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser and create > the > > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special because it runs on > > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first impression > > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved > documentation. > > > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could mostly be > resolved > > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, and telling > how > > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is primarily bug > > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this problem is a > > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months back: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler wrote: > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really > help. > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release ourselves, I > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then release. > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago and > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the commit > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. The > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more time > to get it in. > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and quick > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as they > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be merged > to the master. > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet wrote: > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for 0.8.0. > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > The wall of text version: > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > > different reasons. > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > performance-based > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly run > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because of > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning > off > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing > anything > > here? > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be > involved > > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you > > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? This > > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc problem. > > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser and create > the > > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special because it runs on > > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first impression > > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved > documentation. > > > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could mostly be > resolved > > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, and telling > how > > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is primarily bug > > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this problem is a > > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would support improving > > the documentation, both full-dev and for aggregation in general for the > > 0.7.1 point release, while making a 0.8.0 release contingent upon the > > outstanding PRs to enable it in the management UI. > > > > There are a couple deeper issues, imo, that I care substantially more > about > > than this in particular > > * The dev environment is being used as our intro for users, because it's > > convenient for us to not maintain more environments (which has been a > major > > pain point in the past). Worse, the dev environment strongly implies it's > > for Metron developers, rather than people looking to build on top of > > Metron. We need an actual strategy for providing end users a clean > > impression of Metron (this could be clarifying what the expectations of > > full dev are, renaming it to something like "full-demo", something more > > involved, etc.). This is something that we've needed for awhile in > general, > > and includes larger topics like improving our website, potentially > > improving the site book, actually publishing our Javadocs somewhere so > > people can develop things easier, publishing out info about Stellar
Re: [DISCUSS] Dev guideline changes for architecture diagrams
I’m all set with this, but for one question, why image and image-source as opposed to diagram and diagram source? Isn’t it more descriptive? Is there another reason ( like for doc gen )? On May 1, 2019 at 20:12:47, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: Picking up where things left off in the VOTE thread on the subject, I'm presenting a revision to my original proposal below. I'd like to get this signed off on before submitting it for another vote. Otto, picking up where we left off, let me know if this looks good to you. I'd like to propose a vote to change our dev guidelines which will clarify the tooling we use to produce diagrams and share the source files for those diagrams. The original discuss thread is noted at the end of this email. I propose the dev guidelines https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines and PR checklist https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md#for-documentation-related-changes be changed in the following ways: 1. Under "1.1 Contributing A Code Change" 1. Change <<"New features and significant bug fixes should be documented in the JIRA and appropriate architecture diagrams should be attached. Major features may require a vote.">> to <<"New features and significant bug fixes should be documented in the JIRA. Appropriate architecture diagrams should be created in https://www.draw.io/ and committed to source control as per section 2.4. Diagrams may be requested of PR submitters during review either as documentation or as an aid to the reviewer. Major features may also require a vote.">> 2. Under "2.4 Documentation" 1. New line item <<"Diagrams - We save architecture diagram source files in an xml format rendered by draw.io (instructions below). This is the free tool of choice that we've agreed to use for exchanging diagrams and their source files in Metron.">> 2. New line item >. This section would provide basic instructions for downloading source files from draw.io. 3. Add a new checkbox item under PR checklist heading "For documentation related changes" with the following text 1. Have you ensured that any documentation diagrams have been updated, along with their source files, using draw.io? See https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines for instructions. 4. Here is the Jira for migrating/redoing existing diagrams 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2099 - Original DISCUSS thread - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3ae02f1e32044b1a7648899700d44611aefdab6caa09fb3196292425@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E - Original VOTE thread - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c41dca65a46354c161d58caa7c79cfac6758f437b6638d12bd5c5622@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it would really help. I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as something quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level that would need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the ui was a sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 ). As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release ourselves, I don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right then release. On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com) wrote: In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago and we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the commit history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. The thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more time to get it in. In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and quick fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as they were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be merged to the master. On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet wrote: > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for 0.8.0. > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > The wall of text version: > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > different reasons. > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a performance-based > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly run > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because of > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning off > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing anything > here? > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be involved > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? This > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc problem. > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser and create the > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special because it runs on > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first impression > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved documentation. > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could mostly be resolved > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, and telling how > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is primarily bug > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this problem is a > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would support improving > the documentation, both full-dev and for aggregation in general for the > 0.7.1 point release, while making a 0.8.0 release contingent upon the > outstanding PRs to enable it in the management UI. > > There are a couple deeper issues, imo, that I care substantially more about > than this in particular > * The dev environment is being used as our intro for users, because it's > convenient for us to not maintain more environments (which has been a major > pain point in the past). Worse, the dev environment strongly implies it's > for Metron developers, rather than people looking to build on top of > Metron. We need an actual strategy for providing end users a clean > impression of Metron (this could be clarifying what the expectations of > full dev are, renaming it to something like "full-demo", something more > involved, etc.). This is something that we've needed for awhile in general, > and includes larger topics like improving our website, potentially > improving the site book, actually publishing our Javadocs somewhere so > people can develop things easier, publishing out info about Stellar > functions in a better manner, etc. > * The fact that parsers are handled in Ambari at all. It's awful and leads > to situations like this. To the best of my knowledge, once we can do > chaining and aggregation in the Management UI, we should be able to > entirely divorce these two overlapping domains. I'd love to see parsers > ripped out of Ambari, then full-dev manages all the setup via REST. At that > point, we
Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy involving a new module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few months ago and we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one of the reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up the commit history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature itself, there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as they do. The thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably takes more time to get it in. In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an easy and quick fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the client as they were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at least we shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready to be merged to the master. On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet wrote: > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a blocker for 0.8.0. > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > The wall of text version: > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for completely > different reasons. > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" environment > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a performance-based > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are regularly run > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal implementation to be > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is because of > the limited resources available that previously resulted in us turning off > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. Right now > however, this feature is not exposed through the management UI, and > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I missing anything > here? > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation feature in a > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care to be involved > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why would you > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular parser? This > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a doc problem. > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser and create the > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special because it runs on > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first impression > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved documentation. > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could mostly be resolved > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, and telling how > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is primarily bug > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this problem is a > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would support improving > the documentation, both full-dev and for aggregation in general for the > 0.7.1 point release, while making a 0.8.0 release contingent upon the > outstanding PRs to enable it in the management UI. > > There are a couple deeper issues, imo, that I care substantially more about > than this in particular > * The dev environment is being used as our intro for users, because it's > convenient for us to not maintain more environments (which has been a major > pain point in the past). Worse, the dev environment strongly implies it's > for Metron developers, rather than people looking to build on top of > Metron. We need an actual strategy for providing end users a clean > impression of Metron (this could be clarifying what the expectations of > full dev are, renaming it to something like "full-demo", something more > involved, etc.). This is something that we've needed for awhile in general, > and includes larger topics like improving our website, potentially > improving the site book, actually publishing our Javadocs somewhere so > people can develop things easier, publishing out info about Stellar > functions in a better manner, etc. > * The fact that parsers are handled in Ambari at all. It's awful and leads > to situations like this. To the best of my knowledge, once we can do > chaining and aggregation in the Management UI, we should be able to > entirely divorce these two overlapping domains. I'd love to see parsers > ripped out of Ambari, then full-dev manages all the setup via REST. At that > point, we can easily tell everyone to just use the management UI. > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:23 AM Otto Fowler > wrote: > > > I think it would help if the full consequences of having the UI show the > > wrong status where listed. > > > > Someone trying metron, will, by default , see the wrong thing in the UI > for > > the ONLY sensors they have that are running and doing data. > > > > What happens when they try to start them to make them work? One, two or > > all? > > What happens when he edits them or try to add transformations? One, two > or > > all? > > What other things can you do
