-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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 a wrapper to add a timestamp to a metric #443
Conversation
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
return e | ||
} | ||
|
||
// NewMetricWithTimestamp returns a new Metric wrapping the provided Metric in a |
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 sounds like it works with direct instrumenation, I think we should try to limit this to MustNewConstMetric. Everyone I've seen trying to do timestamps on direct instrumentation was otherwise using the library incorrectly.
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.
The usual use case is already described in the doc comment. Artificially limiting this to the output of MustNewConstMetric
(and MustNewConstSummary
and MustNewConstHistogram
and NewConstMetric
and NewConstSummary
and NewConstHistogram
) would be weird and cumbersome. Using this wrapper is arcane enough to not happen accidentally. Whoever elects to use such a contraption without reading the doc comments is on their own.
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.
Additional point: Since the timestamp is immutable, people that incorrectly wrap metrics from direct instrumentation will quickly notice that they are exposing the same timestamp forever.
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.
That's true.
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.
Looks great - simple and effective :) thanks!
|
||
func (m timestampedMetric) Write(pb *dto.Metric) error { | ||
e := m.Metric.Write(pb) | ||
pb.TimestampMs = proto.Int64(m.t.Unix()*1000 + int64(m.t.Nanosecond()/1000000)) |
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.
Probably does not make a difference, but I’d return early in case of an error
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.
Somehow my comment here got lost.
It probably really doesn't make a difference, but I find it a bit more robust to set the timestamp even in case of an error. We don't explicitly document to not make any use of the protomessage after an error is returned, so there might be a future use where the error conveys some message that looking at the proto message still makes sense.
Right now, of course, nobody should ever look at the proto message after an error, but then it doesn't matter if we set the timestamp or not.
👍 very nice! |
Many thanks for this enhancement! This allows for fine-grain event correlation and opens Prometheus to a much wider set of applications. |
Supersedes #407 .
@simonpasquier
Signed-off-by: beorn7 beorn@soundcloud.com