[SERVER-24354] sys-perf: Change to more consistent naming between Evergreen and its yaml files Created: 02/Jun/16  Updated: 06/Dec/22  Resolved: 17/Oct/16

Status: Closed
Project: Core Server
Component/s: Performance
Affects Version/s: 3.3.6
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Improvement Priority: Major - P3
Reporter: Henrik Ingo (Inactive) Assignee: Backlog - Performance Team
Resolution: Incomplete Votes: 0
Labels: DP20_overflow, sys-perf-refactor
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Assigned Teams:
Product Performance
Participants:

 Description   

As part of Distributed Performance 2.0, we should clean up and be more consistent, and adhere to our own specs, wrt naming of the Evergreen projects themselves, as well as the modules of the sys-perf project.

Consistency in naming things between Evergreen project name and corresponding yaml file (see last page, left column)
Naming modules (including the functions in system_perf.yml file) in DP 2.0

Assumption in the first spec is that it is not possible / convenient to change the name of the Evergreen project, so the proposal is to change the name of yml file name.



 Comments   
Comment by Ian Whalen (Inactive) [ 17/Oct/16 ]

Name changes will happen as each separate part of the code base is worked on.

Comment by Henrik Ingo (Inactive) [ 28/Jul/16 ]

The degree to which one allows an implementation to deviate from the agreed spec is of course a matter of personal taste, but either way, I've added DP20_overflow label instead.

Comment by Chung-yen Chang [ 28/Jul/16 ]

I don't know why I gave Ian SERVER-24073 as the reason to change the state and gone_away is not the right call too. This one should stay open as we still have some inconsistency in how we name things. Good thing is when I reviewed the table of names in the link above, I believe a large number of things are following the naming scheme.

We should keep this open but I would drop it from the epic though. The naming change does not affect the functionality and can be done at a later point. We need to get the project wrap up and start focusing on regression monitoring soon and can come back to work on this after we get 3.4 in good shape.

Comment by Ian Whalen (Inactive) [ 26/Jul/16 ]

Hmmm, yeah, you'll have to ask chung-yen.chang what he meant - I was merely the fingers here

Comment by Henrik Ingo (Inactive) [ 26/Jul/16 ]

ian.whalen: You didn't elaborate much, but from what I can see SERVER-24073 is completely unrelated to this ticket. I'll reopen this.

Comment by Ian Whalen (Inactive) [ 23/Jun/16 ]

superseded by SERVER-24073

Generated at Thu Feb 08 04:06:07 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.7.1#970001-sha1:2222b88b221c4928ef0de3161136cc90c8356a66.