I'm not sure how this happened but we're missing a number of fields. The NodeInfoResponse should have architecture, cpu_model, and some other things that we're not reporting (also some slurm data). On the bright side, the data that are reported appear to be in agreement with slurm-monitor. On the less-bright side, the slurm-monitor api seems to not really deal with the time_in_s parameter properly, but that has yet to be debugged.
I'm not sure how this happened but we're missing a number of fields. The NodeInfoResponse should have architecture, cpu_model, and some other things that we're not reporting (also some slurm data). On the bright side, the data that are reported appear to be in agreement with slurm-monitor. On the less-bright side, the slurm-monitor api seems to not really deal with the time_in_s parameter properly, but that has yet to be debugged.