#21236: Put a visualization of Tor Browser downloads and updates on the Metrics
website
-------------------------------------+------------------------------
Reporter: karsten | Owner: karsten
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: High | Milestone:
Component: Metrics/Metrics website | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Actual Points:
Parent ID: | Points:
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
-------------------------------------+------------------------------
Comment (by karsten):
Let's have the coding discussion in Berlin. I'm not opposed to the
refactoring you propose. I'm mostly concerned about the timing and about
not knowing in which direction we'll be heading with metrics-web. And if
we do a first step into some direction, that might limit or at least
influence our future choices, which I'd want to avoid. But let's talk
more about this in Berlin when we all still memorize this code. :)
What we should talk about though is the log-line matcher issue you
describe above. I believe there's no bug! Our `LOG_LINE_PATTERN` should
not match a log line with fewer or more capturing groups. Note that there
are ''four'' capturing groups in the pattern of which none are optional
but of which we only use ''three''. I believe that
`logLineMatcher.groupCount() != 3` always returns `true`, because there
are four capturing groups, regardless of the pattern, so your code change
doesn't actually change behavior there. What we ''can'' do is turn the
fourth, unused capturing group into a non-capturing group (see
[https://gitweb.torproject.org/karsten/metrics-
web.git/commit/?h=task-21236-4&id=57edde652bbdf2fd1ff511921d184f66000b696a
57edde6 in my task-21236-4 branch]). But that's just a tweak, not a
bugfix. If I overlooked a bug here, please let me know!
And yes, removing the disagreement data and format makes sense:
[https://gitweb.torproject.org/karsten/metrics-
web.git/commit/?h=task-21236-4&id=6e40b957cb165f9bfe9a806192f3fbd9adaefbd4
6e40b95 in my task-21236-4 branch].
Alright, I'll merge and deploy later today (assuming that these trivial
two changes don't require much review). And I'll write a short
announcement to tor-project@ that this graph now exists. But I'll hold
back the blog post until we have a more thorough analysis of this graph,
per suggestion from yesterday's Vegas meeting.
Thanks again for all the input!
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/21236#comment:23>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online