I think original idea was to show the three most busy (in number of
receives, not installations)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
BTW,
I wonder how we had in mind the computing of the 3 busiest variants, what
does it mean exactly ?
Should we not sum up all the receiver for each VariantMetricInformation
and from there get the top 3 ? Not sure this is happening right now, maybe
@matzew or @edewit could give more info.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, looking into this and I can't see any easy fix.
> The problem as I see it is that the for the same variantId there can be
> multiple receivers. But we currently don't know which ApplicationVariant
> the receivers belong to. So we cannot match them up in DashBoardService.
> This my first time looking at the code so I might be missing something.
> So I'd say your first post about the query being wrong is correct, and we
> have to take the match the VariantMetricInformation and match it with a
> pushApplicationId. Again, I could be way off here :)
>
>
>
>
> On 31 July 2014 10:47, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Seb,
>>
>> sure let me take a closer look at this. I'm getting the feeling that it
>> might not be as simple as that. Let me push something and we can discuss it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 July 2014 10:39, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>> Not sure if I understand exactly what you meant, could do a small
>>> snippet ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
>>> daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh I see. Then I'd say you'll need to change the return type to
either
>>>> use a custom object for the key in the map, or perhaps return a list
with
>>>> that came custom object. What ever makes the most sense in this use
case.
>>>> Makes sense?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31 July 2014 09:39, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, several VariantMetricInformation instances can have the same
>>>>> VariantID, at each send , one is created :
>>>>>
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/push%...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
>>>>> daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this because variantFour and variantFive have the same
variantId
>>>>>> (231543432434)? When added to the map only one will exist later
>>>>>> in findTopThreeBusyVariantIDs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 July 2014 09:20, Sebastien Blanc
<scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morning Peeps,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm currently trying to fix AGPUSH-848[1].
>>>>>>> Basically, the number of receivers shown in the top3 list is
not
>>>>>>> always accurate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that something is wrong with this query :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/model...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have change this test case :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/model...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By adding just one VariantInformation[2] and now the test is
>>>>>>> failing and I have no idea why, so I would aprreciate a
second eye on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm probably missing something obvious but I can not see
it right
>>>>>>> now :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sebi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [
1]https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-848
>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>
https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/ea34e7f9fdafbc0785f2#file-gistfile...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev