I am not sure on the correct syntax to populate the instances of my
MonitoringInfoSpec messages
message MonitoringInfoSpec {
string urn = 1;
string type_urn = 2;
repeated string required_labels = 3;
* map<string, string> annotations = 4;*
}
Notice how the annotations field is not used anywhere. I was unable to get
this to compile and could find no examples of this on the proto github.
Perhaps I'll have to reach out to them. I was wondering if anyone here was
familiar first.
message MonitoringInfoSpecs {
enum MonitoringInfoSpecsEnum {
USER_COUNTER = 0 [(monitoring_info_spec) = {
urn: "beam:metric:user",
type_urn: "beam:metrics:sum_int_64",
}];
ELEMENT_COUNT = 1 [(monitoring_info_spec) = {
urn: "beam:metric:element_count:v1",
type_urn: "beam:metrics:sum_int_64",
required_labels: ["PTRANSFORM"],
}];
START_BUNDLE_MSECS = 2 [(monitoring_info_spec) = {
urn: "beam:metric:pardo_execution_time:start_bundle_msecs:v1",
type_urn: "beam:metrics:sum_int_64",
required_labels: ["PTRANSFORM"],
}];
PROCESS_BUNDLE_MSECS = 3 [(monitoring_info_spec) = {
urn: "beam:metric:pardo_execution_time:process_bundle_msecs:v1",
type_urn: "beam:metrics:sum_int_64",
required_labels: ["PTRANSFORM"],
}];
FINISH_BUNDLE_MSECS = 4 [(monitoring_info_spec) = {
urn: "beam:metric:pardo_execution_time:finish_bundle_msecs:v1",
type_urn: "beam:metrics:sum_int_64",
required_labels: ["PTRANSFORM"],
}];
TOTAL_MSECS = 5 [(monitoring_info_spec) = {
urn: "beam:metric:ptransform_execution_time:total_msecs:v1",
type_urn: "beam:metrics:sum_int_64",
required_labels: ["PTRANSFORM"],
}];
}
}
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:01 PM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "Using a map in an option."
>
> For your second issue, the google docs around this show[1]:
>
> Note that if you want to use a custom option in a package other than the
> one in which it was defined, you must prefix the option name with the
> package name, just as you would for type names. For example:
>
> // foo.proto
> import "google/protobuf/descriptor.proto";
> package foo;
> extend google.protobuf.MessageOptions {
> optional string my_option = 51234;
> }
>
> // bar.proto
> import "foo.proto";
> package bar;
> message MyMessage {
> option (foo.my_option) = "Hello world!";
> }
>
>
> 1: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#customoptions
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:19 PM Alex Amato <ajam...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert and community, :)
>>
>> I was starting to code this up, but I wasn't sure exactly how to do some
>> of the proto syntax. Would you mind taking a look at this doc
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SB59MMVZXO0Aa6w0gf4m0qM4oYt4SiofDq3QxnpQaK4/edit?usp=sharing>
>> and let me know if you know how to resolve any of these issues:
>>
>> - Using a map in an option.
>> - Referring to string "constants" from other enum options in .proto
>> files.
>>
>> Please see the comments I have listed in the doc
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SB59MMVZXO0Aa6w0gf4m0qM4oYt4SiofDq3QxnpQaK4/edit?usp=sharing>,
>> and a few alternative suggestions.
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:08 AM Alex Amato <ajam...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay. That makes sense. Using runtime validation and protos is what I
>>> was thinking as well.
>>> I'll include you as a reviewer in my PRs.
>>>
>>> As for the choice of a builder/constructor/factory. If we go with
>>> factory methods/constructor then we will need a method for each metric type
>>> (intCounter, latestInt64, ...). Plus, then I don't think we can have any
>>> constructor parameters for labels, we will just need to accept a dictionary
>>> for label keys+values like you say. This is because we cannot offer a
>>> method for each URN and its combination of labels, and we should avoid such
>>> static detection, as you say.
>>>
>>> The builder however, allows us to add a method for setting each label.
>>> Since there are a small number of labels I think this should be fine. A
>>> specific metric URN will have a specific set of labels which we can
>>> validate being set. Any variant of this should use a different label (or a
>>> new version in the label). Thus, the builder can give an advantage, making
>>> it easier to set label values without needing to provide the correct key
>>> for the label, when its set. You just need to call the correct method.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it might be best to leave this open to each SDK based on its
>>> language style (Builder, Factory, etc.) , but make sure we use the
>>> protos+runtime validation.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:02 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for bringing this to the list; it's a good question.
>>>>
>>>> I think the difficulty comes from trying to statically define a lists
>>>> of possibilities that should instead be runtime values. E.g. we
>>>> currently we're up to about a dozen distinct types, and having a
>>>> setter for each is both verbose and not very extensible (especially
>>>> replicated cross language). I'm not sure the set of possible labels is
>>>> fixed either. Generally in the FnAPI we've been using shared constants
>>>> for this kind of thing instead. (I was wary about the protos for the
>>>> same reasons; it would be good to avoid leaking this through to each
>>>> of the various SDKs.) The amount of static typing/validation one gets
>>>> depends on how much logic you build into each of these methods (e.g.
>>>> does it (almost?) always "metric" which is assumed to already be
>>>> encoded correctly, or a specific type that has tradeoffs with the
>>>> amount you can do generically (e.g. we have code that first loops over
>>>> counters, then over distributions, then over gauges, and I don't think
>>>> we want continue that pattern all M places for all N types)).
>>>>
>>>> I would probably lean towards mostly doing runtime validation here.
>>>> Specifically, one would have a data file that defines, for each known
>>>> URN, its type along with the set of permitted/expected/required
>>>> labels. On construction a MonitoringInfo data point, one would provide
>>>> a URN + value + labelMap, and optionally a type. On construction, the
>>>> constructor (method, factory, whatever) would look up the URN to
>>>> determine the type (or throw an error if it's both not known and not
>>>> provided), which could be then used to fetch an encoder of sorts (that
>>>> can go from value <-> proto encoding, possibly with some validation).
>>>> If labels and/or annotations are provided and the URN is known, we can
>>>> validate these as well.
>>>>
>>>> As for proto/enums vs. yaml, the former is nice because code
>>>> generation comes for free, but has turned out to be much more verbose
>>>> (both the definition and the use) and I'm still on the fence whether
>>>> it's a net win.
>>>>
>>>> (Unfortunately AutoValue won't help much here, as the ultimate goal is
>>>> to wrap a very nested proto OneOf, ideally with some validation.
>>>> (Also, in Python, generally, having optional, named arguments makes
>>>> this kind of builder pattern less needed.))
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:12 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > FWIW AutoValue will build most of that class for you, if it is as you
>>>> say.
>>>> >
>>>> > Kenn
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:04 PM Alex Amato <ajam...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi Robert + beam dev list,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I was thinking about your feedback in PR#6205, and agree that this
>>>> monitoring_infos.py became a bit big.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm working on the Java Implementation of this now, and want to
>>>> incorporate some of these ideas and improve on this.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I that that I should make something like a MonitoringInfoBuilder
>>>> class. With a few methods
>>>> >>
>>>> >> setUrn
>>>> >> setTimestamp
>>>> >> setting the value (One method for each Type we support. Setting this
>>>> will also set the type string)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> setInt64CounterValue
>>>> >> setDoubleCounterValue
>>>> >> setLatestInt64
>>>> >> setTopNInt64
>>>> >> setMonitoringDataTable
>>>> >> setDistributionInt64
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> setting labels (will set the key and value properly for the label)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> setPTransform(value)
>>>> >> setPcollection(value)
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think this will make building a metric much easier, you would just
>>>> call the 4 methods and the .build(). These builders are common in Java. (I
>>>> guess there is a similar thing way we could do in python? I'd like to go
>>>> back and refactor that as well when I am done)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -------------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As for your other suggestion to define metrics in the proto/enum
>>>> file instead of the yaml file. I am not too sure about the best strategy
>>>> for this. My initial thoughts are:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Make a proto extension allowing you to describe/define a
>>>> MonitoringInfo's (the same info as the metric_definitions.yaml file):
>>>> >>
>>>> >> URN
>>>> >> Type
>>>> >> Labels required
>>>> >> Annotations: Description, Units, etc.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Make the builder read in that MonitoringInfo definision/description
>>>> assert everything is set properly? I think this would be a decent data
>>>> driven approach.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I was wondering if you had something else in mind?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks
>>>> >> Alex
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>
