Pseudo nodes in containers view should be "uncontained", surely?

[tomwilkie]

Its weird for the containers view to have three types of nodes - containers, everything not in a container, and hosts.

I think pseudo nodes in containers should either be hidden of uncontained. I'm guessing the whole pseudo node thing is going to have to become a little more sophisticated - maybe a per-topology pseudo node factory (ie callback)?

[peterbourgon]

We can definitely extend the topology registry to parameterize the treatment of pseudonodes. But I don't quite follow your goals. Can you explain a bit further what you want to accomplish?

[tomwilkie]

(This is a bit of a thought-in-progress) I think psuedo nodes should be the same "kind" as the topology we're injecting them into,

• process topology - pseudo nodes should be our best approximation of processes (see Hide pseudo nodes #99)
• container topology - pseudo nodes should be hidden, or grouped into "uncontained"
• host topology - pseudo nodes should be hosts (we can do this very well)
• process name (process grouped) - maybe hidden? definitely not all grouped into one.
• container image (container grouped) - hidden; no way to know what image they're running

What do you think?

[tomwilkie]

This is basically fixed.