metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zeolla@GMail.com" <zeo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Architecture documentation
Date Tue, 26 Feb 2019 18:38:43 GMT
Sorry for the delay here.  Yup I'm good with where this ended up, thanks!

Jon

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:21 AM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Jon - I think this DISCUSS thread is the last gating factor for getting
> this PR in, are you ok with the prescribed approach here? i.e. Ryan has
> already done a lot of clarification and expansion in the README's and code
> comments, and the follow-on will be creating a separate architecture
> document in Metron root that will go into the next release.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 3:25 PM Justin Leet <justinjleet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Re: Labeling in Jira, I'm fine with having a be "Next + 1" from a release
> > management perspective, but I'd still consider at least taking action on
> > followup to be the relevant party's responsibility (implementer or
> whatever
> > the case may be).  We probably should have a more clear way to tag things
> > like this, but I don't believe we do right now. If there's not a harder
> > dependency than my memory, chances are high it gets
> > overlooked/missed/whatever.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:32 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I really like the idea of architecture.md -> **/architecture.md.
> > >
> > > We overall do not have javadoc in a lot of areas, and could maybe start
> > > working on it as we go and think about asking for it in reviews.
> > > We are also missing the Parser Programmer’s Guide, how to add a parser
> to
> > > the metron system/install etc and other things.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On February 25, 2019 at 15:22:47, Ryan Merriman (merrimanr@gmail.com)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I feel like the code itself is pretty well documented. I updated
> existing
> > > javadocs and added javadocs to classes that didn't have them before
> this
> > > PR. In my opinion the level of documentation for these classes has
> > > increased significantly.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:52 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tentatively agreed on further clarification of what we consider
> in/out
> > of
> > > > scope for documentation re: document something that wasn't documented
> > > > before. Ryan, can you give a quick summary of what you *have*
> > > added/updated
> > > > in documentation on this PR vs what you want to leave out?
> > > >
> > > > My initial concern in punting on docs right now is that part of what
> > made
> > > > this PR/task more challenging in the first place was not having
> > > > documentation. We risk losing context and detail again if we don't do
> > > this
> > > > immediately. Would it be reasonable to split it up as follows?:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Additional overarching documentation feels out of scope - make it
> a
> > > > follow on (see comments below).
> > > > 2. Adding documentation to our existing README's and java code
> comments
> > > > that describe the new/modified functionality should be in scope
> because
> > > > it's part of the unit of work. I expect that a developer should be
> able
> > > > to
> > > > look at the code, tests, comments, and README's and understand how
> this
> > > > code functions without having to start from scratch.
> > > >
> > > > The way we've handled follow-on work before, at least as far as
> feature
> > > > branches are concerned, was to create Jiras and link them to the
> > > > appropriate discussions for context. Maybe we can take that one step
> > > > further and do the release manager a favor by also labeling the
> > > > required/requested release on the Jira as a gating factor. This
> follows
> > > our
> > > > pattern for intermittent test failure reporting, e.g.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1946?jql=project%20%3D%20METRON%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20test-failure%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > I'm also in favor of continuing to document architecture and
> technical
> > > > details as part of the code base as Ryan and Jon have suggested. I
> > think
> > > we
> > > > should have an "architecture.md" in metron root that replaces this -
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/d7d4fd9afb19e2bd2e66babb7e1514a19eae07d0/README.md#navigating-the-architecture
> > > > and covers the broad architecture with links to the appropriate
> modules
> > > for
> > > > detail. Minimally, it would be nice if we had a simple diagram
> showing
> > > the
> > > > basic flow of data in Metron. I think we probably want an updated
> > version
> > > > of this wiki entry from back in the day -
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Metron+Architecture
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:18 AM Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think we should hold up this work to document something
> that
> > > > wasn't
> > > > > previously documented. A follow-on is sufficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:50 AM Ryan Merriman <merrimanr@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Recently I submitted a PR <
> > > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1330>
> > >
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > introduces a large number of changes to a critical part of our
> code
> > > > base.
> > > > > > Reviewers feel like it is significant enough to document at
an
> > > > > > architectural level (and I agree). There are a couple points
I
> > would
> > > > > like
> > > > > > to clarify.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Generally architectural documentation lives in the README of
the
> > > > > > appropriate module. Do we want to continue documenting
> architecture
> > > > > here?
> > > > > > I think it makes sense because it will be versioned along with
> the
> > > > code.
> > > > > > Just wanted to confirm there are no objections to continuing
this
> > > > > practice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A reviewer suggested we could accept the PR as is and leave
the
> > > > > > architectural documentation as a follow on. I think this makes
> > sense
> > > > > > because it can be tedious to maintain a large PR as other smaller
> > > > commits
> > > > > > are accepted into master. An important requirement is the
> > > > documentation
> > > > > > follow on must be completed in a timely manner, before the next
> > > > release.
> > > > > > Are there any objections to doing it this way?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
-- 

Jon Zeolla

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message