[aerogear-dev] Help needed on AGPUSH-848

Thu Jul 31 08:45:21 EDT 2014

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I think original idea was to show the three most busy (in number of
>> receives, not installations)
>>
> The total number or receives for one Variant , right ?
> So, if variant A "sended" a first time to 20 receivers and after that did
> a selective send 5 : the number that must showned is 25
>  And we want the top 3 of this total ?
>

uhm, there was a thread in the past. Burr added something, and Hylke....
and we were somewhat talked into this (I guess we did not think too much
about it :-( )

So... I think.....

we perhaps could:
* show the most (three) recent variants (and their # of receivers)

But IMO not doing a count.  Perhaps that means some code needs to be
rewritten...

Also... "Most active" could mean something else:
* TOTAL number of receivers (per variant/app) -> like a count
* TOTAL number of messages (per vairant/app) -> like a count on the actual
message

I think I do (now) like the first (show the most (three) recent variants
(and their # of receivers) ) the best :-)

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140731/25e87dcc/attachment.html 