[aerogear-dev] Help needed on AGPUSH-848

[Sebastien Blanc]

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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%2Fsrc%2Fmain%2Fjava%2Forg%2Fjboss%2Faerogear%2Funifiedpush%2Fmessage%2FSenderServiceImpl.java#L133
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
>>>>> daniel.bevenius at 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 at 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/jpa/src/main/java/org/jboss/aerogear/unifiedpush/jpa/dao/impl/JPAPushMessageInformationDao.java#L99-L104
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have change this test case :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/model%2Fjpa%2Fsrc%2Ftest%2Fjava%2Forg%2Fjboss%2Faerogear%2Funifiedpush%2Fjpa%2FPushMessageInformationDaoTest.java#L251
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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-gistfile1-java-L30-L35
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140731/fae562ce/attachment.html