1 / 3

Addressing ADC Problems in AMI: Database Structure and Metadata Validation Challenges

The ADC is currently facing significant issues within the AMI framework, particularly regarding the database structure and metadata validation processes. Massive updates have been observed, leading to incoherences across datasets. The lack of proper documentation has made reverse engineering arduous, while synchronization requires ActiveMQ in production. Additionally, there are concerns regarding the validation of XML metadata and output not being part of the release validation. Task management inconsistencies and empty containers exacerbate the situation, necessitating a thorough review and resolution.

alaula
Download Presentation

Addressing ADC Problems in AMI: Database Structure and Metadata Validation Challenges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ADC Problems for AMI • AKTR • Database structure should be reviewed • Transactional model ? Massive updates have been observed • Incoherences (see extra slides) • General ADC problem • Finite state diagram for dataset states doesn't exist. • Lack of documentation (reverse engineering is painful) • Sometimes our work has been duplicated • DQ2 • Synchronisation needs ActiveMQ in production

  2. Software project problems • Validation of metadata.xml • Validation of metadata output is not part of release validation, and it should be • Problems of transforms • Who is going to replace Alvin Tan

  3. Container incoherence example • Task 73194, marked "finished" in AKTR 2010-04-22 11:03:54.0 (actually was probably finished on 2009-07-16 09:44:24) • All containers are empty. • data09_cos.00121238.physics_RPCwBeam.recon.TAG_COMM.r733/ • data09_cos.00121238.physics_RPCwBeam.recon.NTUP_MUONCALIB.r733/ • data09_cos.00121238.physics_RPCwBeam.recon.ESD.r733/ • data09_cos.00121238.physics_RPCwBeam.recon.AOD.r733/ • data09_cos.00121238.physics_RPCwBeam.recon.log.r733/ • data09_cos.00121238.physics_RPCwBeam.recon.HIST.r733/ • But the TID datasets exist in DQ2 (i.e. the data is not deleted) • Example : data09_cos.00121238.physics_RPCwBeam.recon.TAG_COMM.r733_tid073194 (3827 files)

More Related