any in-progress Redfish TelemetryService enhancements?

[Ed Tanous]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 5:52 AM Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 09:07:51PM -0800, Ed Tanous wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:23 PM George Liu <liuxiwei1013 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Wludzik, Brad:
> >>
> >> Since we have some open-issues that need to rely on Telemetry service:
> >> https://github.com/ibm-openbmc/dev/issues/2968
> >> https://github.com/ibm-openbmc/dev/issues/2969
> >
> >The people that care about those things should really be reviewing the
> >patches that are already in flight.  Unless I'm mistaken, I see no
> >reviews from George on any of the telemetry patches:
> >https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/q/topic:%2522telemetry%2522+reviewedby:liuxiwei%2540inspur.com
>
> No disagreement that those who care about telemetry should help review
> telemetry patches.
>
> For what its worth I asked George to post to this thread so that
> everyone is aware of his intent to work on these features.  OpenBMC is a
> siloed project and I'm trying to set an example and break the silos down
> by overcommunicating and asking others to do the same.

I have no issue with posting here;  That's great, and helps break down
silos, where I struggle is where we propose features on top of the
existing.

>
> >> I want to make sure that Intel team will finish it by summer?
> >> If it is, that is great, we will always focus on and participate in
> >> the code-review.
> >> Otherwise, as Brad said, we will come up with a proposal and report back here.
> >
> >You should participate in the reviews and help test either way.
>
> I think there is a misunderstanding here.  The point of this thread was
> simply to find out if the telemetry experts (or anyone else that cares
> to comment) had any opinions on how these functions should be
> implemented.  Clearly George can't review his own proposal can he?

I don't think any would argue that, but if George needs someone to
review his proposal, he should be reviewing other proposals, right?

>
> >If the initial feature doesn't land on master, there's no point in
> >working on or planning secondary features.
>
> I understand you are focused on reviews and for good reason.  Does it
> not make sense to work on reviews and design/planning in parallel?
>

There's no problem with working on things in parallel, but when many
patches have been in review for a very long time, with almost no input
outside of maintainers and the submitters have asked for help
reviewing multiple times, it's hard when someone pops up months later
and suggests we stack more patches on top, while at the same time
ignoring others patches.

George, to be clear, this is not to single you out, and this problem
goes beyond you.  To some extent, the email just hit a bit of a nerve.
It would be really helpful if you could add your input and participate
in the reviews.  In this specific case, I recall pointing out the
missing Min/Max/Average aggregations (from the first bug) in one of
the original telemetry code reviews.  I don't remember what the answer
was there, but I don't think it got added.  I don't think append
behavior has come up, but I suspect it would've changed some of the
initial design if we had known it was desired.

> -brad