Have you considered creating a feature branch for the effort? This would allow you to break the effort into chunks, where the result of each PR may not be a fully working "master-ready" result.
I am sure you guys tackled the work in chunks when developing it, so consider just replaying those chunks onto the feature branch as separate PRs. On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 5:24 AM Tibor Meller <tibor.mel...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wondered on the weekend how we could split that PR to smaller chunks. > That PR is a result of almost 2 months of development and I don't see how > to split that to multiple WORKING parts. It is as it is a whole working > feature. If we split it by packages or files we could provide smaller > non-functional PR's, but can end up having a broken Management UI after > having the 1st PR part merged into master. I don't think that would be > acceptable by the community (or even by me) so I would like to suggest two > other option to help review PR#1360. > > #1 We could extend that PR with our own author comments in Github. That > would help following which code part belongs to where and why it was > necessary. > #2 We can schedule an interactive code walkthrough call with the ones who > interested in reviewing or the particular changeset. > > Please share your thoughts on this! Which version would support you the > best? Or if you have any other idea let us know. > > PS: I think the size of our PR's depends on how small independently > deliverable changesets we can identify before we starting to implement a > relatively big new feature. Unfortunately, we missed to do that with this > feature. > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:49 PM Shane Ardell <shane.m.ard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > NgRx was only used for the aggregation feature and doesn't go beyond > that. > > I think the way I worded that sentence may have caused confusion. I just > > meant we use it to manage more pieces of state within the aggregation > > feature than just previous and current state of grouped parsers. > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:32 AM Michael Miklavcic < > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Shane, thanks for putting this together. The updates on the Jira are > > useful > > > as well. > > > > > > > (we used it for more than just that in this feature, but that was the > > > initial reasoning) > > > What are you using NgRx for in the submitted work that goes beyond the > > > aggregation feature? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:22 PM Shane Ardell <shane.m.ard...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > In response to discussions in the 0.7.1 release thread, I wanted to > > > start a > > > > thread regarding the parser aggregation work for the Management UI. > For > > > > anyone who has not already read and tested the PR locally, I've > added a > > > > detailed description of what we did and why to the JIRA ticket here: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1856 > > > > > > > > I'm wondering what the community thinks about what we've built thus > > far. > > > Do > > > > you see anything missing that must be part of this new feature in the > > UI? > > > > Are there any strong objections to how we implemented it? > > > > > > > > I’m also looking to see if anyone has any thoughts on how we can > > possibly > > > > simplify this PR. Right now it's pretty big, and there are a lot of > > > commits > > > > to parse through, but I'm not sure how we could break this work out > > into > > > > separate, smaller PRs opened against master. We could try to > > cherry-pick > > > > the commits into smaller PRs and then merge them into a feature > branch, > > > but > > > > I'm not sure if that's worth the effort since that will only reduce > the > > > > number commits to review, not the lines changed. > > > > > > > > As an aside, I also want to give a little background into the > > > introduction > > > > of NgRx in this PR. To give a little background on why we chose to do > > > this, > > > > you can refer to the discussion thread here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > We previously discussed introducing a better way to manage > application > > > > state in both UIs in that thread. It was decided that NgRx was a > great > > > tool > > > > for many reasons, one of them being that we can piecemeal it into the > > > > application rather than doing a huge rewrite of all the application > > state > > > > at once. The contributors in this PR (myself included) decided this > > would > > > > be a perfect opportunity to introduce NgRx into the Management UI > since > > > we > > > > need to manage the previous and current state with the grouping > feature > > > so > > > > that users can undo the changes they've made (we used it for more > than > > > just > > > > that in this feature, but that was the initial reasoning). In > addition, > > > we > > > > greatly benefited from this when it came time to debug our work in > the > > UI > > > > (the discussion in the above thread link goes a little more into the > > > > advantages of debugging with NgRx and DevTools). Removing NgRx from > > this > > > > work would reduce the numbers of lines changed slightly, but it would > > > still > > > > be a big PR and a lot of that code would just move to the component > or > > > > service level in the Angular application. > > > > > > > > Shane > > > > > > > > > >
