send some client info to database to track processing issues #198
Conversation
…encap-core into local-docker-dev
check resource usage
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@carmichaelong thanks. I left a few comments, only important ones are in docker-compose where dev-specific names/paths should not be merged in prod.
| @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ | |||
| version: "3.9" | |||
| services: | |||
| mobilecap: | |||
| image: 660440363484.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/opencap/opencap | |||
| image: 660440363484.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/opencap/opencap-dev | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@carmichaelong it should be opencap-dev on dev and opencap on prod. Ideally we find a way to have this not hard coded. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the catch. I definitely was too focused on getting this right for dev branch to still work, whoops.. I may have to make another feature branch of this and remove -dev if we don't want to keep changing that back and forth on this branch.
I agree that we should avoid hard-coding things like this, and I think of it as related to all the different branches that are active and used by different machines (e.g., main vs dev, local vs aws). Been thinking of ways to simplify this and can make a new issue and discuss there!
| @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ services: | |||
| count: 1 | |||
| capabilities: [gpu] | |||
| openpose: | |||
| image: 660440363484.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/opencap/openpose | |||
| image: 660440363484.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/opencap/openpose-dev | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As above, it should be openpose-dev on dev and openpose on prod.
| @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ services: | |||
| count: 1 | |||
| capabilities: [gpu] | |||
| mmpose: | |||
| image: 660440363484.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/opencap/mmpose | |||
| image: 660440363484.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/opencap/mmpose-dev | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As above, it should be mmpose-dev on dev and mmpose on prod.
|
LGTM, plus we tested last week. We should address Antoine's feedback and document it. |
@antoinefalisse also adding you as a second reviewer this time to see if @AlbertoCasasOrtiz and I missed something
added:
tested by reprocessing a session on dev (i.e., did not capture new data). happy to do extra testing if needed