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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 12, 2024. It is now read-only.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
It is hard to track if a campaign is active or inactive. If it is inactive, it is also hard to understand for how long it is inactive. So, the clean-up of the inactive campaigns takes a long time for the team members.
Describe the solution you'd like
We can create a cron job which runs once in a week and checks:
For each campaign, if there has been a workflow in the system from this campaign in the last N months. If not, it raises an alert (sends an email?) and PnR considers whether to archive it or not.
Describe alternatives you've considered
We can keep the old-fashion manual check procedure.
I think we talked about this and the problem is how would the system know. From computing side you only look at the top level campaign submitted right? Especially in step chain. You will only ever see Gen and the miniAOD output or nanoAOD output. What about the steps in the middle how will computing know?
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Impact of the new feature
Campaign management
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
It is hard to track if a campaign is active or inactive. If it is inactive, it is also hard to understand for how long it is inactive. So, the clean-up of the inactive campaigns takes a long time for the team members.
Describe the solution you'd like
We can create a cron job which runs once in a week and checks:
For each campaign, if there has been a workflow in the system from this campaign in the last N months. If not, it raises an alert (sends an email?) and PnR considers whether to archive it or not.
Describe alternatives you've considered
We can keep the old-fashion manual check procedure.
Additional context
@z4027163 @scarletnorberg FYI
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: