Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-dev - Re: [pS-dev] Re: Self-test triggering/response messages pointer

Subject: perfsonar development work

List archive

Re: [pS-dev] Re: Self-test triggering/response messages pointer


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Stijn Melis <>
  • To:
  • Cc: "Luchesar V. ILIEV" <>, Roman Lapacz <>, Szymon Trocha <>, Maciej Glowiak <>, Verena Venus <>, Cándido Rodríguez Montes <>, Nicolas Simar <>, Domenico Vicinanza <>, perfSONAR developers <>,
  • Subject: Re: [pS-dev] Re: Self-test triggering/response messages pointer
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:32:12 +0200

Hi all,

please find my comment inline.

This becomes complex only because there is not a clear way to tell which test triggered which resulting event. If the self test includes 5 tests (if somewhere it was defined that 5 things such as the configuration file, database, connectivity, logging, and file permissions should be tested as this one eventType) there is not a clear way to tell which datum belongs to which subtest. It is also a mystery to the initiator of the test that there would be 5 subtests in the first place (unless they happened to have the documentation handy).

If the separation was as so for a request:

<metadata id="m1">
<eventType>.../admin/selftest/ma/snmp/test1</eventType>
</metadata>

<metadata id="m2">
<eventType>.../admin/selftest/ma/snmp/test2</eventType>
</metadata>

<data id="d1" metadataIdRef="m1" />

<data id="d2" metadataIdRef="m2" />


While this seems like a good idea, it isn't really helpful for the SSHTELNET MP in my opinion. The tests done for the MP are the following:

1) check if eXist works (i.e. get metadata from it)

2) from this metadata, try to execute a command on every device

The problem lies within step 2. In order for the service desk to create a valid request following the proposal above, the service desk would need to know the number of devices configured in the MP.

Alternatively, you can group all devices in one metadata block, and call the test "device test" or something, but then I think that's a bit besides the point of having this separation of the tests in the request.

Any other thoughts on this?

I do agree that it is more easy to interpret when all the datum elements in the response belong to a specific part of the metadata, instead of grouping everything together.

The response would be easier to interpret:


<metadata id="r-m1" metadataIdRef="m1">
<eventType>.../success/...</eventType>
</metadata>

<metadata id="r-m2" metadataIdRef="m1">
<eventType>.../error/...</eventType>
</metadata>

<data id="d1" metadataIdRef="r-m1">
<datum>some results here</datum>
</data>

<data id="d2" metadataIdRef="r-m2">
<datum>some other results here</datum>
</data>


Cheers,

Stijn



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page