Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add 'manual' type to named reporting intervals #19

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 4, 2015

Conversation

uwiger
Copy link
Member

@uwiger uwiger commented Apr 3, 2015

The main reason for doing this is to simplify unit testing, but also
interactive testing with reporters. Rather than having repeating output,
or (in unit tests) having to wait for some time before output is generated,
a report batch can now be triggered on demand.

The main reason for doing this is to simplify unit testing, but also
interactive testing with reporters. Rather than having repeating output,
or (in unit tests) having to wait for some time before output is generated,
a report batch can now be triggered on demand.
@tolbrino
Copy link
Contributor

tolbrino commented Apr 3, 2015

Some tests would be highly appreciated. The change looks good though.

@tolbrino
Copy link
Contributor

tolbrino commented Apr 3, 2015

BTW, the build failure in one of the Travis builds is the reason why I'm testing out wercker.

@uwiger
Copy link
Member Author

uwiger commented Apr 4, 2015

Yes, tests will come. In fact, this is what I'm working towards. Ironically, the reporters that exist in exometer_core (lager & tty) are quite hard to test. I've done most of my experimentation with the statsd reporter, which is much easier to rig for testing. I knew I should have moved it to exometer_core along with the rest!

uwiger added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2015
Add 'manual' type to named reporting intervals
@uwiger uwiger merged commit 780a896 into master Apr 4, 2015
@tolbrino tolbrino deleted the uw-manual-report-interval branch December 5, 2015 12:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants