You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm writing a sample where I know a stream (Stream) has no tuples, however, it's a rigged example, and I'm trying to demonstrate that there is a way to test for no tuples flowing.
If no tuples are flowing, then I want to tag it in a different way then if tuples are flowing.
I talked with @vdogaru and we got it to the point where if I put a counter on the stream that I suspect has no tuples and then after submitting the topology go through all the counters and look at their values I can see which oplets (counters) have no tuples.
But I can't figure out a way programmatically to test if a stream has no tuples, and if that is the case tag it. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
If not, I will log it as an enhancement. Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently tags are not a runtime concept, but are set at topology declaration time. So I'm not sure if it would be possible to detect no tuples flowing and then dynamically tag it.
Seems like a peek operator with a timed window should be able to detect if no tuples are flowing. It could then set a metric indicating if tuples are flowing or not.
I'm writing a sample where I know a stream (Stream) has no tuples, however, it's a rigged example, and I'm trying to demonstrate that there is a way to test for no tuples flowing.
If no tuples are flowing, then I want to tag it in a different way then if tuples are flowing.
I talked with @vdogaru and we got it to the point where if I put a counter on the stream that I suspect has no tuples and then after submitting the topology go through all the counters and look at their values I can see which oplets (counters) have no tuples.
But I can't figure out a way programmatically to test if a stream has no tuples, and if that is the case tag it. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
If not, I will log it as an enhancement. Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: