Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Groups and series should be declared and it should allow for no grouping #935

Open
edlongman opened this issue Aug 16, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Groups and series should be declared and it should allow for no grouping #935

edlongman opened this issue Aug 16, 2022 · 1 comment
Milestone
under review

Comments

@edlongman
Copy link
Contributor

For this example I have selected the packets received at a single node, under 4 different interface configurations and with 5 repetitions.

image

The IDE infers that the series should be "interfaceType" and group should be "replication"

If I remove the "replication" grouping, I expect only 4 bars like the following:
image

However it won't accept no grouping, giving the error: "Please set both the Groups and Series properties in the dialog - or neither, for automatic setup."
Is this the designed behaviour?
Instead I have to group by "name" or some other parameter that they all share which seems counter intuitive.

Alternatively, I could put the interfaceType as the grouping, but then I have to put some other "universal" parameter in the Series field:
image
@torokati44
Copy link
Member

Your expectation (the middle screenshot) is entirely reasonable, and it should probably work that way.
I think there were some technical reasons for why the current behavior emerged (having to put a universal attribute into the "other" field).

@rhornig rhornig added this to the under review milestone Sep 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
under review
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@rhornig @torokati44 @edlongman