[aerogear-dev] Help needed on AGPUSH-848

[Matthias Wessendorf]

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 at 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 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140731/a8879732/attachment.html