-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SLA #710
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
96ed8f7
to
72287ad
Compare
837e50f
to
72acb56
Compare
92fbd5a
to
72bfa88
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm focusing only on the algorithm itself as I'm not very familiar with PHP and IPL.
General remarks:
- The query for the timeline itself is now split across two files (one with the column definitions and one with the filters). That would probably be better to understand if it was possible to keep this in one place and include comments.
- If I understand correctly, in case of a breakdown report, this currently fetches the timeline for each sub-interval separately. Generally, since now instead of a single value, the entire SLA history is fetches, it would be possible to do all this in a single query and split the result into the sub-intervals in PHP (could be an optimization, someone else has to judge if this is worth putting effort into).
The test data looks sensible but I didn't compare every single detail with the current test data on the Go side. Are there any intentional changes, especially to accommodate the change in handling 99/pending?
Also to anyone else reviewing this: if there are any question regarding the algorithm, just ask me.
library/Icingadb/ProvidedHook/Reporting/Common/SlaReportUtils.php
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
$time = $this->time[$i]; | ||
$state = $this->state[$i]; | ||
|
||
if ($this->previousState[$i] === 99 || ($lastHardState === 99 && $event !== 'state_change')) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This condition is changed to compared to the current one: https://github.com/Icinga/icingadb/blob/4ed4db3ab642622bb917797a8207589ce5f89f07/schema/mysql/schema.sql#L139
I think this is the change that's actually supposed to address Icinga/icingadb#558. If we want to mix this in here, I'd try change the order of actions in the loop, the current condition was my suggestion for a quick test to see if this would bring an improvement. The general idea was to check if $lastHardState
would be 99 at the end of the iteration. So it could make sense to just move this branch of the conditional after the update to $lastHardState
(the update of $lastEventTime
would have to be moved behind that then).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So it could make sense to just move this branch of the conditional after the update to
$lastHardState
(the update of$lastEventTime
would have to be moved behind that then).
$lastHardState
is only updated when the current row event type is a state_change
. How would this make any difference compared the current implementation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It should do exactly the same. My hope is that the change makes the code easier to understand.
a3a3909
to
6d9f348
Compare
Yes! ffee32b |
Daily breakdown:
Weekly breakdown:
fixes #713