[pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ui: ceph/Status: fix recovery percentage display

[Thomas Lamprecht]

On 07.07.21 13:23, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 7/7/21 12:19 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> On 07.07.21 10:47, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>> diff --git a/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js b/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js
>>> index e92c698b..52563605 100644
>>> --- a/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js
>>> +++ b/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js
>>> @@ -321,14 +321,14 @@ Ext.define('PVE.node.CephStatus', {
>>>       let unhealthy = degraded + unfound + misplaced;
>>>       // update recovery
>>>       if (pgmap.recovering_objects_per_sec !== undefined || unhealthy > 0) {
>>> -        let toRecover = pgmap.misplaced_total || pgmap.unfound_total || pgmap.degraded_total || 0;
>>> -        if (toRecover === 0) {
>>> +        let totalRecovery = pgmap.misplaced_total || pgmap.unfound_total || pgmap.degraded_total || 0;
>>
>> why change the variable name, `toRecover` was still OK? Or at least I do not see
>> any improvement in making it easier to understand with `totalRecovery` if byte vs.
>> objects where a issue of confusion why not addressing that by using `toRecoverObjects`
>> or the like
> i read the code and thought 'toRecover' means objects that need recovery, but it is not. {misplaced,unfound,degraded}_total each contain
> the total number of objects taking part in the recovery
> (also the ones that are not unhealthy)
> 
> maybe 'totalRecoveryObjects' would make more sense ?

totalRecoveryObjects and toRecoverObjects are so similar that they do not really
convey the difference to me for the confusion you had for any other reader, for that
I'd rather add a short comment, those tend to be a bit more explicit for subtle stuff.

> 
>>
>> Also, why not adding those metrics up? If, misplaced and unfound do not have any
>> overlap, IIRC, so would def. make sense for those - for degraded I'm not so sure
>> about overlap with the other two from top of my head though.
> 
> they contain all the same number
> src/mon/PGMap.cc:{467,482,498} pool_sum.stats.sum.num_object_copies

ah yeah true, I remember now again. Do you also know where this is actually
set (computed).