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

DM-10779: Implement running time metric(s) #8

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 16, 2017
Merged

Conversation

kfindeisen
Copy link
Member

This ticket adds running time metrics for major Tasks run by the AP pipeline. These metrics are not associated with any specifications.

Copy link
Member

@jonathansick jonathansick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Two recommended changes:

  1. Change the comment line at the top of packages to not say "Alert Production metric definitions". This is because there's one metrics file per package, unlike specifications, so we can't separate by metric users, per se.

  2. I think the verify_ap.yaml file needs to be renamed.

Other than that, I like your use of YAML anchors & references to DRY the definitions.

Have you verified that lsst.verify parses everything okay?

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
# Alert Production metric definitions in verify_ap
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be ap_verify now?

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
# Alert Production metric definitions in pipe_tasks
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since these are metrics generically for pipe_tasks, I'd say "pipe_tasks metric definitions" and not mention alert production specifically. (This is because there's one metrics file per package, unlike specifications, so we can't separate by metric users, per se).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My intent was that these would evolve into section headers:

# Alert Production metric definitions in pipe_tasks
[code]
# Data Release Production metric definitions for pipe_tasks
[code]

Is that not a good way of organizing the metrics within each package?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I see what you mean. I guess the trick is that some metrics (especially generic ones like run times, may be shared by multiple user groups. Using tags like you are is a good way to declare usage/ownership. But it's fine if you want to keep those headers as-is for now.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Anonymized the headers. You're right that the concept of metric ownership might not be a useful or desirable one.

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
# Alert Production metric definitions in meas_astrom
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same comment as in pipe_tasks.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
# Alert Production metric definitions in meas_algorithms
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same comment as in pipe_tasks.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
# Alert Production metric definitions in ip_diffim
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same comment as in pipe_tasks.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
# Alert Production metric definitions in ap_association
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same comment as in pipe_tasks.yaml

@kfindeisen kfindeisen merged commit 47aff28 into master Aug 16, 2017
@ktlim ktlim deleted the tickets/DM-10779 branch August 25, 2018 06:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants