No, I really meant 1/. With a single text field mixing tag filters and
names. Or did I misunderstood the idea?
It might be worth taking a look at InfluxDB's datasource code. IIRC, they
let you switch between guided (with many specific text fields) and
freestyle (query language) mode.
2017-01-18 10:29 GMT+01:00 Joel Takvorian <jtakvori(a)redhat.com>:
Thomas, I think you mean the "2b" proposal? (with a simple
text field to
type custom query in). I can't see how to provide auto-completion with
that. I think if we go this way, we loose auto-completion.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Thomas Segismont <tsegismo(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> 1/ sounds best to me, as it would give users the power of a query
> language. But auto-completion could be quite a challenge there, couldn't it?
>
> 2017-01-18 9:54 GMT+01:00 Joel Takvorian <jtakvori(a)redhat.com>:
>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I would like to get some opinions on the hawkular-grafana-datasource
>> querying usability, especially if you had the opportunity to create
>> dashboards recently and had to juggle with querying by metric name and by
>> tag.
>>
>> Currently the panel displays different elements depending on you're
>> querying by metric name (see picture:
https://raw.githubusercontent.
>> com/hawkular/hawkular-grafana-datasource/master/docs/images/
>> search-by-name.png )
>>
>> Querying by name is quite straightforward, but it can be cumbersome when
>> there's a lot of available metrics and you have to scroll among suggestions
>> to find the one you want.
>>
>>
>> Or by tag (see picture:
https://raw.githubusercontent.
>> com/hawkular/hawkular-grafana-datasource/master/docs/images/
>> search-by-tag.png )
>>
>>
>> The "query by tag" interface is not very intuitive IMO (you define a
>> list of key-value pairs), moreover to this date there is no auto-completion
>> on tag name.
>>
>> There's been some features in metrics recently that, I think, can enable
>> a better UI on Grafana side. First, there is Micke's feature "Allow
>> fetching of available tagNames" [1] that enables suggestions
>> (auto-completion) on tag name. And most importantly there's the new
"tag
>> query language" that could (should) have its place in Grafana.
>>
>>
>> So I would have several suggestions for improving the UI and queries.
>>
>> *1*: First of all I think we can remove the "Search by name" /
"Search
>> by tag" selector, and allow searching by name AND by tag at the same time:
>> providing tags would refine the available metrics in the metrics text field
>> suggestions (auto-completion). If this text field is left blank, all
>> available metrics are displayed.
>>
>> Then, there's several scenarios to take advantage of the new hawkular
>> metrics features:
>>
>> *2a*: keep current key/value pairs system, but improve with adding
>> suggestion on tag names.
>>
>> *2b*: replace key-value pairs with the new tags query, via a simple
>> text field:
>>
>>
>> We may or may not include syntax validation here. We must provide some
>> documentation on that.
>>
>> *2c*: replace key-value pairs with the new tags query, with a dedicated
>> "builder" UI:
>>
>> Each of these boxes in tags query would have a contextual
>> auto-completion feature:
>> - suggestions on 1: list of tag keys
>> - suggestions on 2: list of operators (=, !=, IN, NOT IN)
>> - suggestions on 3: list of tag values for the given key (with some
>> slights differences on brackets if it's the first element or not; closing
>> bracket as a choice if it's not the first element)
>> - suggestions on 4: operators AND / OR
>>
>>
>> The 2b option is obviously simpler, very fast to implement. It has the
>> downside of loosing all auto-completion capabilities, even compared to the
>> current version.
>>
>> 2c looks nicer and more intuitive in its usage, people won't have to
>> read the doc to use it. However there's several downsides:
>> - Need to implement the logic => need for time for development, adds
>> complexity to our grafana plugin.
>> - Introduces a dependency to the language on server side. When the
>> language evolves, we'll have to maintain this as well.
>>
>>
>> Ideas & thoughts? I think it's preferable to proceed in several steps.
>> In a first time I could implement *1* and *2a*, and later (and maybe
>> giving some time to the language to be "stabilized") going with *2c*.
>>
>> [1]
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/HWKMETRICS-532
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hawkular-dev mailing list
>> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev