[Hawkular-dev] Tag concept in metrics and alerts

Wed Jun 24 08:51:49 EDT 2015

----- Original Message -----
> > Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] Tag concept in metrics and alerts
> > 
> > Hi Lucas
> > 
> > Not sure the alert or definition will be appropriate - assuming that the
> > definition is a static representation of the trigger?
> > 
> > The information (business transaction id) I am referring to is per business
> > transaction instance - i.e. it is unique for each invocation of a business
> > transaction. So this can only be obtained from the information being
> > evaluated by the trigger.
> >
> > Let me know if I have misunderstand what you meant as definition.
> >
> 
> No, I think you were right.
> 
> Then the BT id is mapped into the data being processed by the engine.
> 
> So, then I guess that BT id should be mapped just in the data that alerts use
> as input for processing.
> 
> The Alert model stores this info by default. Each alert has a list of the
> evaluations (conditions definitions + specific data responsible of the
> trigger).
> 
> Then perhaps I understand that you need to code the BT info into the incoming
> data, right ?

Yes that is correct.

So just to check - if I include the BT id in the metric being supplied to the engine, then the 'tag' (name/value pairs) information for that metric will be carried into alert as part of the evaluation information?

Regards
Gary

>  
> > Regards
> > Gary
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Thx Gary,
> > > 
> > > Comments in-line,
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Lucas
> > > > 
> > > > The context is around the topic of HWKALERTS-49 - being able to
> > > > replicate
> > > > the
> > > > RTGov 'situation' functionality using alerts. I think the main part
> > > > missing
> > > > at the moment is being able to associate the Alert with the business
> > > > transaction information that caused it.
> > > > 
> > > > I believe there are two scenarios that may occur, where business
> > > > transaction
> > > > data may result in an Alert:
> > > > 
> > > > (1) metrics derived from the business transaction data are applied to
> > > > the
> > > > alert engine resulting in an alert - the persisted Alert will need to
> > > > contain some link back to the business transaction. Metrics has their
> > > > 'tag'
> > > > name/value pair, which I believe could be used to store this info when
> > > > the
> > > > metric is created - so just need a way to carry that over into the
> > > > alert.
> > > > 
> > > > (2) other 'events' - so for example, if we identify some situation of
> > > > interest (a service failure), we create an object representing that
> > > > situation and send it to the alerts engine - again the originating
> > > > business
> > > > transaction id would need to be carried across via the intermediate
> > > > 'service
> > > > failure' object.
> > > > 
> > > > Is it possible this could be handled by the work you are doing on
> > > > HALERT-57?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > In HWKALERTS-57 we are improving the Action model to pass the Alert that
> > > was
> > > linked and also the Alert should have information about the definition
> > > who
> > > triggered it.
> > > 
> > > So, having an action, you will have the alert and the definition data.
> > > 
> > > If the business transaction info is "mapped" into the definition, the
> > > action
> > > will have it.
> > > 
> > > These requeriments were addressed by plugins but as we are still working
> > > on
> > > it, we can join other requeriments in the same context to improve it.
> > > 
> > > How do you plan to map the BTM info into the definition ? using Tags ?
> > > 
> > > That can help me to add/modify some aspect of the present work.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lucas
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Regards
> > > > Gary
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > Perhaps a rename to "Label" can be valid.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Gary, is there some place where I can find more details about the
> > > > > context
> > > > > ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > (Just to understand the whole scenario and see if what can be
> > > > > needed/interesting).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Lucas
> > > > > 
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
> > > > > > <hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 12:43:56 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] Tag concept in metrics and alerts
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't mind if we adopt Tag as being name/value pair - but then we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > use the same approach in Alerts. I actually need the Alert to have
> > > > > > ability
> > > > > > to record name/value pairs so this would suit my need, but they
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > they would need to change their current Tag to be something else,
> > > > > > possibly
> > > > > > Label?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Gary
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > Not using the same terminology as "industry standards" is a
> > > > > > > problem,
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > using the same terminology within Hawkular small world is
> > > > > > > another...
> > > > > > > Can we solve both ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 06/24/2015 12:25 PM, Michael Burman wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't agree with changing the terms. Many of metrics
> > > > > > > > competing
> > > > > > > > products
> > > > > > > > (such as InfluxDB / OpenTSDB) use the same terminology, so it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > for customers to understand the differences and similarities
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > products. Using different terminology was one of the
> > > > > > > > difficulties
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > RHQ
> > > > > > > > (like noted in the F2F meeting) and I don't think we should
> > > > > > > > repeat
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same mistake.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    - Micke
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
> > > > > > > > <hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 11:45:56 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [Hawkular-dev] Tag concept in metrics and alerts
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Both metrics and alerts use the term 'tag' - however metrics
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > name/value pair for a tag, and alerts uses it as a label.
> > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > whether we need consistency?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I hear the term tag, I usually envisage a label - e.g. as
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > git.
> > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > wondering whether it would be clearer for metrics to rename
> > > > > > > > tags
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > properties?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Possibly metrics needs the concept of a tag/label as well?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > Gary
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > > > > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > > > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> 