[7] Show status of all API servers? about bitshares-ui HOT 16 CLOSED

@wmbutler

Resolved by PR 329

from bitshares-ui.

From @btswolf on April 5, 2016 21:0

GUI should ask automatically (timeout) to switch API connection after lost connection/blockchain sync problems.

This is a bit out of scope. Maybe add this in later.

from bitshares-ui.

Create UX to include:

• up/down
• latency
• location

This dynamic listing of servers will require seed nodes to respond to ICMP request in order to show state and latency while in a list. Frontend will need to generate pings to all servers in the list in order to provide feedback to the end user. Ideally latency should be color coded red,yellow,green to indicate acceptable latency.

Current Screen

from bitshares-ui.

• Sort order should be ascending latency
• Make sure down nodes are sorted to the bottom
• UP/DOWN 30pt bold
• Latency 14pt
• Activate/Remove buttons are visible on hover state
• Remove Button is only visible on nodes the user manually added

from bitshares-ui.

Key for colors based upon latency

from bitshares-ui.

• Placeholder text for both input fields.
• Validation for ws:// and wss:// in address field
• Adding a new node does not select it. Only adds it to the Available Nodes list.
• make wss:// default in placeholder (addresses #230)

from bitshares-ui.

@svk31 Is it possible for a node to be up and have low latency but for the socket to be down or out of sync? If so, I need to expand upon the latency and up/down status. I think if the node is out of sync, it may be wise to have a third indicator, but I'm not sure what it would be called or how we would test for an out of sync node.

from bitshares-ui.

Pull request 278 has been added to address this issue. One thing to note is that when the user sets "Choose closest server automatically", that is shown as the active node rather than the node actually in use. Will need to dig further into the code (and increase the estimate) to resolve that.

It may also be necessary to modify the mechanism used to establish latency for various servers.

Note that translations will need to be implemented for other languages. Also, some servers which appear by default do not have a status. Perhaps we need to change our logic for querying them, and if they are actually down permanently, remove them from the defaults

from bitshares-ui.

I like the direction these changes are heading.

Where does the location info come from, the IP address? Compiled into the binary? Although I have a public, load balanced API server running I haven't added it with a PR (if that is the way it should be added) so I am not sure what info is required.

One consideration is not to be too specific but rather limit location to a regional description. We need to start putting more thought in protecting the location of seed and witness servers and it's not clear to me the community thinks about that as much as we did 2 years ago.

from bitshares-ui.

Thanks for your comments but please open a separate ticket for specific changes.

from bitshares-ui.

Yeah, I am unclear where you want things. I was trying to comment on this specific UI change (better info to users for connections). This issue is for such changes is it not? How are my comments out of place? I do not have changes specific enough for a PR, I am only providing input on one aspect of these changes.

Trying to contribute, not hinder you. What is a "ticket", is it not an "issue" here on github? Is this very page I'm interacting with not a "ticket"? A separate item (ticket / issue whatever) potentially changes the focus away from this specific topic, a facet of which I want to make a comment about (dynamic info location and where that comes from).

I see in the Telegram DEX channel you encourage people to use github and be explicit about changes. Perhaps a basic project readme that describes the methodology of the project will help people with similar (confusion) about how you have things organized. I thought my understanding was OK but perhaps not. Please set me straight if so.

from bitshares-ui.

@wmbutler @svk31 The existing PR was extended to include showing the active node when the server is automatically selected.

Issue 110 was updated as appropriate.

from bitshares-ui.

@ThomasFreedman his ticket has already been claimed, worked and closed. Your suggestions were expanding scope on an item that has already been completed. Open a new issue if you require additional scope.

from bitshares-ui.

• Sort order should be ascending latency
• Make sure down nodes are sorted to the bottom
• Remove Button is only visible on nodes the user manually added

@calvinfroedge you missed a few bullet points on this one... increase the estimate as you see fit.

from bitshares-ui.

Thanks BB, noted for future issues.

from bitshares-ui.

Nice, @calvinfroedge thanks.

from bitshares-ui.