11

Latest replies and responses…still nothing logical, all sounds made up in an attempt to sidestep the issue.

From Bubble:

Our engineering team confirmed that the metadata update is labeled incorrectly as “Condition Evaluation” when a recurring event runs after it is already set. After the recurring event runs, it schedules itself for the next date/time, which also triggers the metadata changes.

From me:

Could you please help me understand why the mislabeld ‘conditional evaluation’ charge of 0.63 WUs is nearly 6 times higher than the 0.1 WUs in the charge sheet for adding a new item to the scheduler?

From Bubble:

Our engineering team confirmed that the metadata update reads an item, which uses at least 0.015 WU + more for each byte, and then writes to the item, which uses 0.5 WU.

From me:

Now, I’m confused more. If this recent explanation about reading an item and then writing to the item is to explain the cost of the ‘lookup if existing recurring events exist’ that is okay, but the issue now is not that, it is the fact that the reply previously was about why after the first ‘set recurring event’ ran, which is when I’d expect a need to ‘lookup if existing recurring event exists’ would take place, so not during the ‘set recurring event’ but during the actual adding to the scheduler.

I showed the screen shot and indicated that the same mislabeled metadata for conditional evaluation shows up during the actual running of the recurring event, whether that be the second, third, fourth run of that event, there is still this charge of 0.63/0.64 WUs for conditional evaluation. The most recent message prior to this indicated that was for adding the event to the scheduler, so my question was why is that cost of adding the event to the scheduler as displayed publicly the charge sheet of 0.10 WUs 1/6 the cost of what is experienced here at 0.63/0.64.

Please do not conflate the two issues. I’m okay with the explanation that the conditional evaluation is mislabled, and is a ‘lookup if existing recurring event exists’ and that there may be a need to read an item at 0.15WUs and write to the item at 0.5WUs (even though that is 0.65 WUs and not the 0.63/0.64 expereinced) as happens when we run the set recurring event action, but that doesn’t seem necessary and is not the explanation for why that same charge is experienced on each run, as it was expressed it is for the adding item to scheduler once we get past the initial set recurring event.

So the question is why is it that on each successive run of the recurring event is there a charge of 0.63/0.64 WUs to simply add the event to the scheduler?

Part of the issue is that the numbers don’t add up. And I am the type that believes numbers don’t lie. If the pricing sheet says adding to scheduler is 0.10 WUs I’d expect the adding to the scheduler for recurring events to also be 0.10 WUs. And I could understand that there may be an additional charge of 0.60WUs for running the ‘action’ (If I schedule a backend workflow it costs 0.60 WUs to run the action that is schedule backend worklfow plus 0.10 WUs for adding it to the scheduler). So if I saw the recurring event with a mislabeled charge of 0.70WUs of conditional evaluation for each successive run, I’d understand, but it is 0.63/0.64 WUs and not 0.70 WUs…nor did the explanation of it is the cost for adding to the scheduler include the idea that perhaps an ‘action run’ charge is also applied.

I feel like I’m not getting logical explanations, and this issue is not being addressed properly.

Surely Bubble is not leaving any money on the table. So if there is a need to update the metadata for each successive run with a cost of 0.15 for read and 0.5 for write plus the 0.10 to add to the scheduler, the cost should be 0.75WUs and not 0.63/0.64…I’m just looking for a logical explanation that has numbers that can add up, because something is off and it is not being addressed by Bubble.

1 Like