757822 - [UI-RB-REPORT] Top Crashers by Build Date

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Socorro :: Webapp, task, P1)

Description

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

Currently top crashers support the ability to view reports by signature or by OS. We need to extend the capability of this report to also allow these reports to be shown by build date.

Comment 1

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

[:laura] For this report are we:

1) Going to show this for a specific build date i.e. the user selects a single date,
2) The user can select a date range or
3) both of the above.

I am thinking the best way to do this visually is to provide a field with a date picker from which the user can select either on or two dates depending on the answer to the above.

If date range, are we limiting the date range to say no more the two weeks or is this open to the user and can go as far back and for as long a period of time as we have data?

Comment 2

[Robert Kaiser]

The requirement I stated there is that we have the same "last 1/3/7/14/28 days" selector as we have for current TCBS, just that it would reflect build days and not crash days.
It would be good if the lead-in text of the report would tell which the latest day is that we actually display data for, though.

Comment 3

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

ANSWER TO THE ABOVE
-------------------

Topcrashers By Crash Date

This is our existing view of TopCrashers, which will be unchanged except for aggregating all Betas.

    User selects:
        Product P
        Version V (see Betas, above)
        Time Window W, expressed as weeks back in time from now, defaulting to 1 week 
    Report displays:
        aggregated crash counts for P.V,
        for crashes received during window W.

Comment 4

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

This will be a new "view" of the Topcrashers page. It will be largely useless for release versions, so we may not want to offer it for those. Its layout and functionality will be almost identical to the other Topcrashers view, but its data source will be a different matview.

    User selects:
        Product P
        Version V (see Betas, above)
        Time Window W, expressed as weeks back in time from now, defaulting to 1 week 
    Report displays:
        aggregated crash counts for P.V,
        for builds with build dates during W
        for crashes received within 7 days of the Build Date

Comment 5

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

[:kairo] On the above we want to display crashes for the selected product and version for both builds with build dates during W and crashes received within 7 days of the Build Date.

So, do we want to separate these into two separate tables or, will these be displayed together in one table? If they are going to be displayed in the same table, do we need to distinguish the two sets from each other?

Comment 6

[Robert Kaiser]

I have no idea what the "two sets" might be that you are talking about.

For every day of builds, we are taking all crashes happening for those builds withing max 7 days of that day they were built on, aggregate those and place them into a DB.

Then we take W days before today, and sum up the entries for those into the topcrash view (just like we add up W days in the per-crashdate one right now).

Comment 7

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

[:kairo] So, other then these being by build date as apposed to be crash date there is no difference, from the UI?

Comment 8

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

Attachment: by build date screen grab

[:kairo] So is this basically what we want from the 'by build date' view? Do we require all of the filters at the top? Are there new/additional one's that are missing?

Also, I know the lead in content is not exactly what we would want here. If you have some suggestions as to what it should be changed to, please let me know.

Comment 9

[Laura Thomson :laura]

Sheila, since Kairo is on vacation, can you give some feedback here?  We're blocked.

Comment 10

[[:jberkus] Josh Berkus]

Schalk,

I just realized an issue with this mock up: you have by signature|by build date.  Those are not alternatives.  You need by report date|by build date as the switch.

Comment 11

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

[:jberkus] So no longer by signature or do we want all three? i.e. 

by signature | by report date | by build date

Comment 12

[[:jberkus] Josh Berkus]

the "by signature" option doesn't mean anything, because there's no longer any other option.  There used to also be a "by URL", but that's gone now.

Comment 13

[Robert Kaiser]

Comment on attachment 633241 [details]
by build date screen grab

This looks good to me with the detail of renaming "By Signature" to "By Crash Date" (see also Josh's comments).

Comment 14

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

Attachment: Revised UI

Comment 15

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

[:kairo] Can we sign off on the UI for this one based on my last screen grab?

Comment 16

[Robert Kaiser]

Comment on attachment 638675 [details]
Revised UI

Yup, looks good now.

Comment 17

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

Branch is at :: https://github.com/ossreleasefeed/socorro/tree/mobeta-report-by-build-date-757822 - Note, this is only the UI change and the functionality still needs to be developed.

Comment 18

[[DEACTIVATED] Adrian Gaudebert]

@KaiRo, how about we use the terms "Report Date" instead of "Crash Date" here. Quoting myself: 

> Also, I believe we should use the terms "report date" instead of "crash date" as we use the 
> date when we processed the crash and not the date when the crash happened. I think it's 
> clearer and closer to the reality to use "report date". Thoughts?

Comment 19

[Robert Kaiser]

(In reply to Adrian Gaudebert [:adrian] from comment #18)
> @KaiRo, how about we use the terms "Report Date" instead of "Crash Date"
> here. Quoting myself: 
> 
> > Also, I believe we should use the terms "report date" instead of "crash date" as we use the 
> > date when we processed the crash and not the date when the crash happened. I think it's 
> > clearer and closer to the reality to use "report date". Thoughts?

I'm not really sure. I recently realized that we are *not* using the date when we processed the crash, but the collection date (even though the DB field is confusingly called processed_date or so), which is pretty near to the actual crash date. That said, "report date" is probably good for that.

Comment 20

[Schalk Neethling [:espressive]]

(In reply to Robert Kaiser (:[e-mail]) from comment #19)
> (In reply to Adrian Gaudebert [:adrian] from comment #18)
> > @KaiRo, how about we use the terms "Report Date" instead of "Crash Date"
> > here. Quoting myself: 
> > 
> > > Also, I believe we should use the terms "report date" instead of "crash date" as we use the 
> > > date when we processed the crash and not the date when the crash happened. I think it's 
> > > clearer and closer to the reality to use "report date". Thoughts?
> 
> I'm not really sure. I recently realized that we are *not* using the date
> when we processed the crash, but the collection date (even though the DB
> field is confusingly called processed_date or so), which is pretty near to
> the actual crash date. That said, "report date" is probably good for that.

So to confirm, we are changing crash date to report date?

Comment 21

[Robert Kaiser]

(In reply to Schalk Neethling [:espressive] from comment #20)
> So to confirm, we are changing crash date to report date?

We could. I'm not sure what it helps or if we should do that.