Skip to content
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

save conditional gatherer endpoint and firing alerts in the metadata #620

Conversation

Serhii1011010
Copy link
Contributor

Categories

  • Bugfix
  • Enhancement
  • Backporting
  • Others (CI, Infrastructure, Documentation)

Sample Archive

  • docs/insights-archive-sample/insights-operator/conditional-gatherer-rules.json

Documentation

No changes

Unit Tests

  • path/to/file_test.go

Privacy

No new data was collected

Changelog

No

Breaking Changes

No

References

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/???
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=???
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/???

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from mfojtik and smarterclayton May 8, 2022 15:38
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented May 8, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Sergey1011010

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 8, 2022
@Serhii1011010
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

"firing_alerts": [
"AlertmanagerClusterDown",
"TargetDown",
"Watchdog"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't that redundant information,please? I mean we have was_triggered flag, which implies that an alert was firing right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It can be helpful for debugging and also could be used in the integration tests later

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Having something helpful for debugging and in the integration tests doesn't mean we have to add it to the archive ....at least for me :-P Anyway, it's probably not a big deal (although once something is in the archive then it's pretty difficult to remove it), I am just saying that I think the information is already there.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, it's not, the condition can be more complicated than just an alert (rn it can also include cluster version, but later probably more things)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not too important tho, we could delete it if you want

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point with the conditions potentially being more complicated, but we don't have any at the moment AFAIK so I wouldn't add it now.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

changed it

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks so we need to change the sample archive as well right.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oops

@xJustin
Copy link
Contributor

xJustin commented May 19, 2022

/label docs-approved

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the docs-approved Signifies that Docs has signed off on this PR label May 19, 2022
@JoaoFula
Copy link
Contributor

/label qe-approved

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the qe-approved Signifies that QE has signed off on this PR label May 23, 2022
@tremes
Copy link
Contributor

tremes commented May 26, 2022

I didn't test with any firing alert, but it looks good to me. Thanks.
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 26, 2022
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented May 26, 2022

@Sergey1011010: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@sferich888
Copy link

/label px-approved

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the px-approved Signifies that Product Support has signed off on this PR label May 31, 2022
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 3eada68 into openshift:master May 31, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. docs-approved Signifies that Docs has signed off on this PR lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. px-approved Signifies that Product Support has signed off on this PR qe-approved Signifies that QE has signed off on this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants