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

Support grouping rules such that rules within a group are executed sequentially #1095

Closed
juliusv opened this Issue Sep 17, 2015 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@juliusv
Member

juliusv commented Sep 17, 2015

Introduce a mechanism to wrap a set of rules into a group in such a way that all rules within that group are executed sequentially (vs. in parallel). This allows dependent rules to work deterministically.

Historical note: See also discussions on #1088 and #17.

@brian-brazil

This comment has been minimized.

Member

brian-brazil commented Sep 17, 2015

As an additional note, we'll also likely want to use such groups to indicate which rules are allowed to access remote storage. Generally remote storage should be avoided for reliability reasons, and only be used for human trending.

@zxwing

This comment has been minimized.

zxwing commented Jul 13, 2016

Is there any timeline for this feature?

@fabxc

This comment has been minimized.

Member

fabxc commented Jul 13, 2016

It's not a super-trivial one so it will take a bit. But it's high up on the list of next features to work on.

@aecolley

This comment has been minimized.

aecolley commented Oct 31, 2016

Are there any thoughts on how these groupings will be expressed syntactically? It occurred to me that it can be inferred automatically by comparing (lhs) rule names+labelsets with (rhs) metric selectors, and grouping all possibly-matching rules together. However, this is a bit automagic, so it's not necessarily the obvious solution.

I'm considering making an unpublished patch to implement this, just to stay on top of mounting technical debt. I would prefer not to diverge too far from whatever plans you have without good reason, so I'm asking what those plans are.

@juliusv

This comment has been minimized.

Member

juliusv commented Nov 1, 2016

@aecolley That was my initial idea early on, but that isn't as unproblematic as it sounds: #17

@gouthamve

This comment has been minimized.

Member

gouthamve commented Apr 4, 2017

A proposal for fixing this with backward compatibility is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AgRT1sJyvxwVx6ZLffUKFZ3yYFt01LSz_ohLQbA2yc4/edit

@brian-brazil

This comment has been minimized.

Member

brian-brazil commented Jul 14, 2017

Added in 2.0.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment