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
Refactor metrics domainstats #11601
Refactor metrics domainstats #11601
Conversation
ba6dae9
to
4b5a40b
Compare
8180122
to
8bd0228
Compare
/retest |
6b0a987
to
87538ba
Compare
/retest |
8f1c2f7
to
415964c
Compare
@@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ var _ = Describe("[Serial][sig-monitoring]Component Monitoring", Serial, decorat | |||
}, 5*time.Minute, 500*time.Millisecond).Should(Succeed()) | |||
}) | |||
|
|||
It("VirtHandlerRESTErrorsBurst and VirtHandlerRESTErrorsHigh should be triggered when requests to virt-handler are failing", func() { | |||
PIt("VirtHandlerRESTErrorsBurst and VirtHandlerRESTErrorsHigh should be triggered when requests to virt-handler are failing", func() { |
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 found the E2E tests for virt-handler were having the same flakiness as 415964c#diff-5973bd8e1862c32cabfb41df6b9f6ebd8c81eb221b43965d12779f2476514579R224
I also marked it as pending to check them later together
ref: 0c086a0
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.
@machadovilaca Does the flakiness related to this PR changes?
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.
yeah, not really, different PR?
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.
Yes, it's better to split so we can track these changes better.
c1b865b
to
86cad03
Compare
/lgtm |
e917b10
to
26f700a
Compare
/retest pull-kubevirt-unit-test |
@machadovilaca: The
The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:
Use
In response to this:
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. |
/test pull-kubevirt-unit-test |
/lgtm |
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.
@machadovilaca Thank you for the PR! can you please mention in the PR description all the refactor changes you are about to do? it seems that you have commits unrelated to domainstats refactoring
@enp0s3 only https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/pull/11601/files#r1598518754 really, the virt-handler version metric and handler were meshed with the domainstats |
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: enp0s3, sradco 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 |
Required labels detected, running phase 2 presubmits: |
26f700a
to
c48c44c
Compare
waiting #11945 |
…andler Signed-off-by: machadovilaca <machadovilaca@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: machadovilaca <machadovilaca@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: machadovilaca <machadovilaca@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: machadovilaca <machadovilaca@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: machadovilaca <machadovilaca@gmail.com>
c48c44c
to
9a1a931
Compare
merged |
/lgtm |
Required labels detected, running phase 2 presubmits: |
What this PR does
Before this PR:
domainstats were not refactor accordingly to kubevirt/community#219
After this PR:
domainstats are refactored
Fixes #
jira-ticket: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CNV-38133
Why we need it and why it was done in this way
The following tradeoffs were made:
The following alternatives were considered:
Links to places where the discussion took place:
Special notes for your reviewer
Checklist
This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR.
Approvers are expected to review this list.
Release note