Ubuntu CI Dashboard

Merge lp://qastaging/~cjohnston/qa-dashboard/add-uss-tables into lp://qastaging/qa-dashboard

add-uss-tables
Merge into dev

Proposed by Chris Johnston on 2013-06-05

Status:	Work in progress
Proposed branch:	lp://qastaging/~cjohnston/qa-dashboard/add-uss-tables
Merge into:	lp://qastaging/qa-dashboard
Prerequisite:	lp://qastaging/~cjohnston/qa-dashboard/fix-stacked-height
Diff against target:	514 lines (+328/-30) 8 files modified memory/management/commands/agg_processes.py (+9/-0) memory/management/commands/agg_results.py (+2/-1) memory/management/commands/jenkins_pull_memory.py (+2/-0) memory/migrations/0002_add_uss_results.py (+249/-0) memory/models.py (+10/-5) memory/tables.py (+26/-7) memory/templates/memory/machine_details.html (+2/-2) memory/views.py (+28/-15)
To merge this branch:	bzr merge lp://qastaging/~cjohnston/qa-dashboard/add-uss-tables
Related bugs:	Link a bug report

Reviewer	Review Type	Date Requested	Status
PS Jenkins bot	continuous-integration		Needs Fixing on 2013-06-14
Joe Talbott		2013-06-05	Needs Fixing on 2013-06-05
Review via email: mp+167433@code.qastaging.launchpad.net

Commit message

Add USS results to memory detail tables.

Description of the change

Currently the memory details page shows two tables, one contains the PSS measurments for each process, the other the total PSS measurement. With the new PSS/USS stacked chart, it makes sense to add USS measurements to the process table.

lp://qastaging/~cjohnston/qa-dashboard/add-uss-tables updated on 2013-06-05

430. By Chris Johnston on 2013-06-05: Remove admin changes
431. By Chris Johnston on 2013-06-05: Which build are we looking at

Revision history for this message

Joe Talbott (joetalbott) wrote on 2013-06-05:

Rather than add uss fields to the result and metric models I think we should add new result instances with name = 'uss' for the USS values and new metric instances with name = 'uss' for those metrics. The models shouldn't need to be changed at all.

review: Needs Fixing

Revision history for this message

Andy Doan (doanac) wrote on 2013-06-06:

On 06/05/2013 09:10 AM, Joe Talbott wrote:
> Rather than add uss fields to the result and metric models I think we should add new result instances with name = 'uss' for the USS values and new metric instances with name = 'uss' for those metrics. The models shouldn't need to be changed at all.

Is that safe? ie uss/pss contribute to the same "result". So would
splitting them up still make it possible to correlate which USS and PSS
results were tied with each other?

Revision history for this message

Chris Johnston (cjohnston) wrote on 2013-06-06:

What Joe and I discussed was to add build number and then we could look
them up by build number.

Revision history for this message

Andy Doan (doanac) wrote on 2013-06-06:

On 06/06/2013 05:16 PM, Chris Johnston wrote:
> What Joe and I discussed was to add build number and then we could look
> them up by build number.
>
Is that going to be efficient? ie is this going to cause us to do things
in 2 queries we could otherwise do in 1?