Skip to content
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

Create a Log Entity for AMI operations or CSV report? #92

Closed
DiegoPino opened this issue May 3, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed

Create a Log Entity for AMI operations or CSV report? #92

DiegoPino opened this issue May 3, 2022 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed question Further information is requested Reporting Errors, Logs, etc.
Milestone

Comments

@DiegoPino
Copy link
Member

What?

I'm not sure yet but I feel this might be a needed discussion related to #37. AMI batch sets are hard to debug without proper logging. And even if we can generate drupal dblog messages those are not very safe/reliable if we need to filter/find the ones we need or might not even stay around long enough. Also sometimes a single AMI set generates multiple iterative operations.

My only concern on going the custom ENTITY for logging route is performance. A Single AMI set can have 10K entries. This would generate 10K log entities * number of operations * number of AMI sets... do we want this? And how long do we want to keep logs?

But one benefit of this approach is also undo operations and revert operations. But also allow to retraced lost entities. But then we have the data always on.

The second option is to write logs/reports into CSVs. Each operation generates a CSV that can be downloaded IF the user decides so, if not gets lots in the Universe of lost socks and CSVs, or can be all be attached in a temporal manner to the AMI set for future reference (a CSV would be tiny in comparison but would still be permanent). The bad thing about the CSV is the lack of proper filtering/querying that a DB/entity would give us (via the UI, you can still use Excel/GoogleSheets for that). In a custom Entity I could filter by date/type of operations, who did it, etc.

Anyone has comments/suggestions?

@DiegoPino DiegoPino added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed question Further information is requested Reporting Errors, Logs, etc. labels May 3, 2022
@DiegoPino DiegoPino added this to the 0.4.0 milestone May 3, 2022
@DiegoPino DiegoPino self-assigned this May 3, 2022
DiegoPino added a commit that referenced this issue May 3, 2022
Adds new modes:

   'update':  "Normal Update. Will update a complete existing ADO's configured target field with new JSON Content."
        'replace' : "Replace Update. Will replace JSON keys found in an ADO's configured target field with new JSON content. Not provided ones will be kept"
        'append': "Append Update. Will append values to existing JSON keys in an ADO's configured target field. New ones will be added too."

Adds also safety switch.

JSON patching logging is going to be disabled by default until #92 is defined.
DiegoPino added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 24, 2022
Adds new modes:

   'update':  "Normal Update. Will update a complete existing ADO's configured target field with new JSON Content."
        'replace' : "Replace Update. Will replace JSON keys found in an ADO's configured target field with new JSON content. Not provided ones will be kept"
        'append': "Append Update. Will append values to existing JSON keys in an ADO's configured target field. New ones will be added too."

Adds also safety switch.

JSON patching logging is going to be disabled by default until #92 is defined.
@DiegoPino
Copy link
Member Author

Deprecated. We went for a log file

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed question Further information is requested Reporting Errors, Logs, etc.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant