don't override existing labels in scrape jobs #593
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
lucabello
requested review from
Abuelodelanada,
dstathis,
IbraAoad,
mmkay,
PietroPasotti,
sed-i and
simskij
as code owners
mmkay
approved these changes
Apr 24, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue
Closes #571.
Solution
Changing the order of the dictionaries to unpack makes sure that pre-exising labels have priority over the automatically-generated topology.
Testing Instructions
Modify a charm (e.g., blackbox) to specify a custom
juju_applicationlabel; then relate it to two Prometheus instances (one without the fix, the other with the fix) and check the difference in the targets section.Before:
After:
There is a unit test that explicitly checks that we do overwrite the topology labels (and it's aptly called
test_consumer_overwrites_juju_topology_labels, in the filetests/unit/test_endpoint_consumer.py). I'm removing that test, since it doesn't really make sense with this PR :)I would like another pair of eyes to confirm this PR is something we want to do!