status.fp.org concept

[Ryan Lerch]

Hi all,

I have been working on this ticket for an updated version of
status.fedoraproject.org.

https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9858

I have come up with a proof of concept that fills all the requirements
specified in the the ticket, and looking for feedback / thoughts on this
new approach.

The source of the POC is here:

https://github.com/ryanlerch/status-playground/

and a recent build version of what it looks like is here:

https://ryanlerch.github.io/status-playground/

cheers,
ryanlerch

[Francois Andrieu]

That looks awesome!
Great work!

Le ven. 30 avr. 2021 à 14:24, Ryan Lerch <rlerch(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit :

>  Hi all,
>
>  I have been working on this ticket for an updated version of
>  status.fedoraproject.org.
>
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9858
>
>  I have come up with a proof of concept that fills all the requirements
>  specified in the the ticket, and looking for feedback / thoughts on this
>  new approach.
>
>  The source of the POC is here:
>
>  https://github.com/ryanlerch/status-playground/
>
>  and a recent build version of what it looks like is here:
>
>  https://ryanlerch.github.io/status-playground/
>
>  cheers,
>  ryanlerch
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to
>  infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:23:50PM +1000, Ryan Lerch wrote:
>  The source of the POC is here:
>  https://github.com/ryanlerch/status-playground/ 
I love your examples.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Ben Cotton]

I like it overall. I'm a little concerned about the backend. Would it
work better to have "outageStarts" and "outageEnds" timestamps in the
file for each outage so that the person handling it doesn't have to
both with moving the files into the right directory? Or maybe just use
labels instead (I'm not familiar enough with Pelican to know how
flexible it would be in that regard).


-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

[Ryan Lerch]

On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 01:36, Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  I like it overall. I'm a little concerned about the backend.
> Would it
>  work better to have "outageStarts" and "outageEnds" timestamps in
> the
>  file for each outage so that the person handling it doesn't have to
>  both with moving the files into the right directory? 

At the moment the date metadata item time stamp is essentially the
outagestart. This field is required by pelican,  and is used for sorting
etc.

Making it automatically recategorize when the time ticks over is kind of
not possible. As the site would have to be regenerated anyway.

Or maybe just use
>  labels instead (I'm not familiar enough with Pelican to know how
>  flexible it would be in that regard). 

Ongoing, proposed and resolved are just categories in a blog type context.
By default, pelican lets a user set the category in the md file metadata,
however I set up this example to use the directories, to make it simpler to
edit an ongoing or proposed entry. Over time there are going to be a lot of
resolved entries to sift through to find the one proposed or ongoing one.

Cheers

>  --
>  Ben Cotton
>  He / Him / His
>  Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
>  Red Hat
>  TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
>  _______________________________________________
>  infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to
>  infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:23:50PM +1000, Ryan Lerch wrote:
>  Hi all,
>  
>  I have been working on this ticket for an updated version of
>  status.fedoraproject.org.
>  
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9858
>  
>  I have come up with a proof of concept that fills all the requirements
>  specified in the the ticket, and looking for feedback / thoughts on this
>  new approach.
>  
>  The source of the POC is here:
>  
>  https://github.com/ryanlerch/status-playground/
>  
>  and a recent build version of what it looks like is here:
>  
>  https://ryanlerch.github.io/status-playground/ 
I love it. ;) 

I agree with Ben about perhaps having a list somewhere of things we get
asked about, but don't have any ability to fix, ie, bugzilla.redhat.com,
or the like. That could be just added to the cpe how to work with us doc
thing.

kevin

[Vít Ondruch]

I like it. Nevertheless, I'll be missing the current page, which lists 
the various services Fedora provides.


Vít


Dne 30. 04. 21 v 14:23 Ryan Lerch napsal(a):
>  Hi all,
>
>  I have been working on this ticket for an updated version of 
>  status.fedoraproject.org <http://status.fedoraproject.org>;.
>
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9858 
>  <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9858>
>
>  I have come up with a proof of concept that fills all the requirements 
>  specified in the the ticket, and looking for feedback / thoughts on 
>  this new approach.
>
>  The source of the POC is here:
>
>  https://github.com/ryanlerch/status-playground/ 
>  <https://github.com/ryanlerch/status-playground/>
>
>  and a recent build version of what it looks like is here:
>
>  https://ryanlerch.github.io/status-playground/ 
>  <https://ryanlerch.github.io/status-playground/>
>
>  cheers,
>  ryanlerch
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 10:53, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  I like it. Nevertheless, I'll be missing the current page, which
> lists the
>  various services Fedora provides.
>
>
>  
The reason we are changing is because of that list. Too many people expect
us to know instantly that something is broken, something like
https://uptimerobot.com/ that rocky linux uses. They also expect us to be
24x7x365 coverage of every service on that list when we are more of a 8
hour US-East M-F sysadmin.


>  Vít
>
>
>  Dne 30. 04. 21 v 14:23 Ryan Lerch napsal(a):
>
>  Hi all,
>
>  I have been working on this ticket for an updated version of
>  status.fedoraproject.org.
>
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9858
>
>  I have come up with a proof of concept that fills all the requirements
>  specified in the the ticket, and looking for feedback / thoughts on this
>  new approach.
>
>  The source of the POC is here:
>
>  https://github.com/ryanlerch/status-playground/
>
>  and a recent build version of what it looks like is here:
>
>  https://ryanlerch.github.io/status-playground/
>
>  cheers,
>  ryanlerch
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to
>  infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>  

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Flame wars in
sci.astro.orion. I have seen SPAM filters overload because of Godwin's Law.
All those moments will be lost in time... like posts on  BBS...

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 03. 05. 21 v 17:18 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
>  The reason we are changing is because of that list. Too many people expect us to know
> instantly that something is 
>  broken, something like https://uptimerobot.com/ <https://uptimerobot.com/> that
> rocky linux uses. They also expect us 
>  to be 24x7x365 coverage of every service on that list when we are more of a 8 hour
> US-East M-F sysadmin. 
That is reason why I added to old status.f.o the link to our monitoring some times ago.
You couldn't add the link back 
Ryan, could you?

Miroslav

[Ryan Lerch]

What is this link? I didn't see it on the old status when i was
re-implementing status

https://web.archive.org/web/20210414105928/https://status.fedoraproject.org/


cheers,
ryanlerch

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 3:16 PM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Dne 03. 05. 21 v 17:18 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
>  >
>  > The reason we are changing is because of that list. Too many people expect us to
> know instantly that something is
>  > broken, something like https://uptimerobot.com/ <https://uptimerobot.com/>
> that rocky linux uses. They also expect us
>  > to be 24x7x365 coverage of every service on that list when we are more of a 8 hour
> US-East M-F sysadmin.
>
>  That is reason why I added to old status.f.o the link to our monitoring some times ago.
> You couldn't add the link back
>  Ryan, could you?
>
>  Miroslav
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 19. 05. 21 v 10:05 Ryan Lerch napsal(a):
>  What is this link? I didn't see it on the old status when i was
>  re-implementing status
>
>  https://web.archive.org/web/20210414105928/https://status.fedoraproject.org/ 
Oh, it already disappeared during datacenter migration.

This:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200521222937/https://status.fedoraproject.org/

Miroslav

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:25:49PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>  Dne 19. 05. 21 v 10:05 Ryan Lerch napsal(a):
>  > What is this link? I didn't see it on the old status when i was
>  > re-implementing status
>  > 
>  > https://web.archive.org/web/20210414105928/https://status.fedoraproject.org/
>  
>  Oh, it already disappeared during datacenter migration.
>  
>  This:
>  
>  https://web.archive.org/web/20200521222937/https://status.fedoraproject.org/ 
You mean the link to nagios? Or ?

I'm a bit worried linking to nagios there will confuse people...

kevin

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 19. 05. 21 v 20:45 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>  You mean the link to nagios? Or ? 

Yes. The link to older outages is not needed with new design.

>  I'm a bit worried linking to nagios there will confuse people...
Why? When something does not work (for me) then I go to status.f.o, then to Nagios and
only then I file an issue.

Miroslav

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 02:09:48PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>  Dne 19. 05. 21 v 20:45 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>  > You mean the link to nagios? Or ?
>  
>  Yes. The link to older outages is not needed with new design.
>  
>  > I'm a bit worried linking to nagios there will confuse people...
>  
>  Why? When something does not work (for me) then I go to status.f.o, then to Nagios and
> only then I file an issue. 
Sure, thats you or me or people who know about how things are setup. 
But end users who don't would go to nagios and see:

Oh no, there's a blocking outage! 
bvmhost-a64-10.iad2.fedoraproject.org is down. I wonder if thats why the
thing I wanted to do isn't working?

Or: pagure02.fedoraproject.org swap is low, could that be why the
getfedora site is loading slowly?

Anyhow, I guess I won't die on this hill... but can we at least put it
at the bottom with some kind of wording that doesn't get end users so
lost?

kevin

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  I like it. Nevertheless, I'll be missing the current page, which
> lists the
>  various services Fedora provides. 
Except it's a incomplete subset of things that people have asked us to
add over time. :) 

So, it's not the full list of things. 
It's also confusing if you don't know what things are... 

like if 'ipsilon' is down, what does that mean?
:)

We do still have: 
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/
(although I think we were going to replace it with a better/more
complete version)

kevin