clasp metrics

[grant]

Expected Behavior

Be able to view metrics such as # of executions, active users, active processes.

• getMetrics
• processes/list

Maybe a metrics dashboard:

• clasp metrics

Actual Behavior

Does not exist. We don't use these API methods. Could they be interesting?

[grant]

It would be nice if we could see the # of API requests:

https://cloud.google.com/monitoring/api/ref_v3/rest/v3/projects.timeSeries/list?apix_params=%7B%22name%22%3A%22projects%2Fcounterpoint-test%22%2C%22filter%22%3A%22metric.type%20%3D%20%5C%22storage.googleapis.com%2Fapi%2Frequest_count%5C%22%22%2C%22interval.endTime%22%3A%222018-11-22T00%3A12%3A59Z%22%2C%22interval.startTime%22%3A%222018-11-21T00%3A12%3A59Z%22%7D

[takanakahiko]

I want this command!
Currently, We should use GUI on web to check up if there are problems in clasp project .
By using this function, We can investigate the problem with CUI only.

[grant]

It could be a useful command. I don't have any add-ons with significant users, so it's less useful for me.

It's a good first issue.

Useful for at least for these metrics:

"activeUsers"
"totalExecutions"
"failedExecutions"

[kalmi]

I decided to pick this up. I am looking for some input on how the output of the command should look like. Does this output style look reasonable?

$ clasp metrics
2020-03-18:  0 users,  0 executions,  0 failed
2020-03-17:  0 users,  0 executions,  0 failed
2020-03-16:  0 users,  0 executions,  0 failed
2020-03-15:  1 users,  1 executions,  0 failed
2020-03-14:  2 users, 21 executions,  2 failed
2020-03-13:  0 users,  0 executions,  0 failed
2020-03-12:  0 users,  0 executions,  0 failed

[contributorpw]

@kalmi

Is it possible get output without any separate signs? : & , are redundant.

[kalmi]

@contributorpw Thanks, good idea. Dropped them. Which one do you prefer?

2020-03-20 0 users  0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-19 0 users  0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-18 0 users  0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-17 0 users  0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-16 0 users  0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-15 1 user   1 execution  0 failed
2020-03-14 2 users 21 executions 2 failed

2020-03-20  0 users   0 executions  0 failed
2020-03-19  0 users   0 executions  0 failed
2020-03-18  0 users   0 executions  0 failed
2020-03-17  0 users   0 executions  0 failed
2020-03-16  0 users   0 executions  0 failed
2020-03-15  1 user    1 execution   0 failed
2020-03-14  2 users  21 executions  2 failed

2020-03-20 0 users 0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-19 0 users 0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-18 0 users 0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-17 0 users 0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-16 0 users 0 executions 0 failed
2020-03-15 1 user 1 execution 0 failed
2020-03-14 2 users 21 executions 2 failed

Also, is the pluralisation (user/users) a good idea? Or is it just confusing?

[contributorpw]

I'd like the second one.

I can't say something best about pluralisation =) I'd like simple stuff.

[kalmi]

I am glad. I prefer that one too.

[contributorpw]

@kalmi, I look forward to your suggestions. I would really like this feature.