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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add metrics datastream for Azure Functions #7130
Add metrics datastream for Azure Functions #7130
Changes from 5 commits
a15b275
d1ebc3b
1c266e5
0096853
843df5f
8519ebb
f2d771d
93e05a8
14d160d
d0616a5
82cba15
6bc1b13
4ceb12c
7e4237f
5dbfc12
fdc69d4
cb5a9be
6e57a58
62bb7d4
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we are moving these vars from the "integration package scope" to the "data stream scope", we should test the upgrade path from 0.1.0 to the new version.
I know this is integration is experimental, but we should see what's the user experience in this use case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried to test the upgrade from 0.0.1 to a new version, including the installations of assets. I was able to ingest logs after the upgrade in ES. So, this should be good enough to go ahead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is cool.
Did the upgrade kept all the integration settings values like event hub name, connection string, etc. from the integration scope to data stream scope?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Update the ECS version to the latest stable version. Also, make sure both the logs and metrics datastream have a sets the same ECS version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should check if we can leverage ECS for these fields definition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we switch to the ECS definition for these fields? They look the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think there is no need to add
description
for ECS fields as they are generated at build time. Also this would override the already present description of the ECS field.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@aliabbas-elastic - The next question is why we need to define a
type
for the ECS field. @devamanv we need to reference the ECS field here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, we should remove the
description
and thetype
fields, and add the missingexternal
field. Will make this change.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@muthu-mps, Is there a ECS field mapping guideline document, which captures the correct way to map ECS fields?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@lalit-satapathy - I don't find a guidelines document for mapping ECS fields. I do see the
service.address
is mapped directly in some and referencing ECS in some integrations.