And now a pretty questionable metric that was requested and that  I feel it
belongs to the audit domain, but let's discuss it ;)
There is a user that wants to know the number of times a certain parameter
has been passed with a certain value to a workflow type (a process id).
Since we do not really have the concept of parameter as is (it is just a
field in a POJO for BPMN and a propert in a JSON for SWF), I was thinking
on providing a custom module to cope with that request to not change the
default ones, but maybe we can think of a way to adding that metric in a
general way.
One idea might be to add a counter with three tags (process-id, parameter
name and parameter value). The issue here is what we understood as a
parameter.
Any idea is welcome (even to rule out the possibility and defer to custom
metrics extensions)


On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:59 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, I was thinking something like that.
> In the parser, add a metadata key ("Metric"?) to the node you want to
> record duration for.
> In the monitoring addon, check for that metadata key and if there, add the
> duration of that node to the metric.
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:54 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I would say is not bad idea but I would restrict per node. Usually you
>> dont
>> want to store information about a script or a transformation.... Maybe a
>> rest call or a service to keep taps on them. I would something like.
>>
>> Metadata on the node for signaling you want to meassure time
>> Metrics per process id - node maybe min, max, average ?
>>
>> Wdyt ?
>>
>>
>> El mar, 23 abr 2024, 11:17, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
>> [email protected]> escribió:
>>
>> > Hi Enrique, I was wondering if we should go further (using a different
>> > issue) and add an additional DistributionSummary  "
>> > kogito_node_instance_duration_seconds" to track node execution duration,
>> > similar  to already existing "kogito_process_instance_duration_seconds"
>> and
>> > "kogito_work_item_duration_seconds", wdyt?
>> > I think such a summary should only be enabled explicitly through
>> > configuration, because the number of records is potentially too high.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:47 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez <
>> > [email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The proposal is sensible as it will fit more what the user has in the
>> > > data index/audit... so we won't have problems regarding data that does
>> > > not fit among sources.
>> > > +1 to me.
>> > >
>> > > One of the things that we should be aware of is related to
>> > > clustering... one process can start in one node.... and can be
>> > > completed in other. This should be kept in mind.
>> > >
>> > > El lun, 22 abr 2024 a las 14:56, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti
>> > > (<[email protected]>) escribió:
>> > > >
>> > > > While implementing the proposal, I faced an issue that forced me to
>> > amend
>> > > > it https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1101 to
>> keep
>> > it
>> > > > aligned with the existing monitoring collection approach.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:53 AM Fabrizio Antonangeli <
>> > > > [email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:46 PM ricardo zanini fernandes <
>> > > > > [email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > +1
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:56 PM Pere Fernandez <
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > El dv., 19 d’abr. 2024, 18:06, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
>> > > > > > > [email protected]> va escriure:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > > > > > Let me know if there is any problem with the proposal in
>> this
>> > > issue
>> > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1101
>> >
>> > > > > > > description.
>> > > > > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to