#297 new
Moses Lei

dispatcher needs option to queue job but also observe log

Reported by Moses Lei | May 19th, 2011 @ 02:02 PM

Right now there are two options when running commands and jobs with dispatch and/or run:

1) Queue the job. Spits back a URL where you can observe the output of the job.
2) Don't queue. Output comes back to the terminal.

We need an option where it's queued, but the output also comes back to the terminal (as if you went to the URL and followed the output). This is important because we want to allow users not to use the GUI but also use the logging capabilities of the rundeck server.

I would go as far as to say this should be the default behavior, although I am not adamant on that point.

Comments and changes to this ticket

  • Greg Schueler

    Greg Schueler May 19th, 2011 @ 04:57 PM

    this could perhaps be done by having the client side also tail (and parse) the log file that is produced by the server

  • Moses Lei

    Moses Lei May 20th, 2011 @ 02:01 PM

    What about when you're running the command line tools from a different box? (This is possible if you just configure framework.properties the right way.)

  • Deleted User

    Deleted User May 20th, 2011 @ 02:43 PM

    But that would assume bi-directional communication on the remote machine?

  • Greg Schueler

    Greg Schueler May 20th, 2011 @ 02:48 PM

    if you use CLI tool or web API to run jobs/adhoc commands from a different
    client, then it would require some new api ability to tail log output

  • Moses Lei

    Moses Lei May 20th, 2011 @ 02:54 PM

    Well, how does the output get to the web page? It's an AJAX call to refresh the latest log output, right? Why can't the CLI tool also use the same call? (This would require a polling from the client, though, which I don't like.)

    Alternatively, to make it more realtime, you could just have a fairly simple API request that would just return the log in Transfer-Encoding: chunked form as RunDeck receives it. We should be able to unescape that and output it immediately to the terminal.

  • Moses Lei

    Moses Lei May 20th, 2011 @ 02:57 PM

    (In general, I think our goal should be to allow someone to never use the GUI-- they should be able to use all of RunDeck's primary functionality just from the command line or the web service API.)

  • Greg Schueler

    Greg Schueler May 20th, 2011 @ 03:11 PM

    the new api ability would use the same underlying code. the ajax/json used
    by the gui is not documented as an api.

    the gui polls for new data. That is the simplest way to do this for the api.

    if you want more realtime output, this requires the server to keep
    connection open and the thread running

  • Deleted User

    Deleted User May 20th, 2011 @ 03:19 PM

    At some point yeah. Given the request/response nature of the webui, you'd have to have a way of changing to some stream mechanism, i.e. websockets. All in due time :)

  • Moses Lei

    Moses Lei May 20th, 2011 @ 04:05 PM

    Aren't we thinking a little too complicated here? We don't need bi-di or websockets... I would imagine it would work like this:

    Client sends GET or POST with these items: execution ID and either 1) log line to start from or 2) timestamp to start from, or indicate it should receive the log starting from "now". At that point the client doesn't need to do anything else; if it loses the connection it just needs to re-request from the last content it got. (Could possibly use HTTP Content-Range headers for this.)

    At that point the server just needs to send a response (probably text/plain in the same format that logs are written to disk), keep the thread open and not close it until Success or Failure or other job ending event. At the end of the output, server should send a trailer header field with the Success/Failure/Killed status of the job and then close the connection.

    If the client asks for the live log, but the job has already completed, server should return the output from where the client requested it, send the trailer header, and close the connection.

    I don't think polling for latest data on interval would really be acceptable at the command line-- the experience should be equivalent to your executing "ssh server command"; i.e. the expectation would be that the output would come back in real time. In other words, the experience should be the same as using --noqueue, but with the execution logged on the server.

    (As a matter of fact I don't think the polling is really that great for the web UI either, but the expectations for a web interface are different from the expectations for a command line tool, so it's more acceptable there. One way I can think of off the top of my head to accomplish realtime output for the Web UI would be to do the same thing as above, but have the client request the log in an , which could be kept in a loading state until the job is done.)

    Are the log files kept on disk updated in close-to-realtime? If so, we could accomplish this just by sending a redirect to the log file location, and HTTP could accomplish this for us.

  • Moses Lei

    Moses Lei May 20th, 2011 @ 04:07 PM

    but have the client request the log in an <iframe>

  • Greg Schueler

    Greg Schueler June 22nd, 2012 @ 10:38 AM

    • Assigned user set to “Greg Schueler”

    see #368

Please Sign in or create a free account to add a new ticket.

With your very own profile, you can contribute to projects, track your activity, watch tickets, receive and update tickets through your email and much more.

New-ticket Create new ticket

Create your profile

Help contribute to this project by taking a few moments to create your personal profile. Create your profile ยป

(DEPRECATED) Please use github issues for issue tracking at http://github.com/dtolabs/rundeck/issues

Shared Ticket Bins

People watching this ticket