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

NETOBSERV-1379: show DNS error number #425

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 7, 2023

Conversation

jpinsonneau
Copy link
Contributor

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau commented Oct 31, 2023

Description

This PR adds dns error number field & filter.
It also ensure dns latency metrics query to run only on flows containing DnsLatencyMs field.

image
image
image

Dependencies

Based on #422
netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent#218

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
    • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
    • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
    • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
    • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
    • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
    • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 31, 2023

@jpinsonneau: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1379 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

This PR adds dns error number field & filter.
It also ensure dns latency metrics query to run only on flows containing DnsLatencyMs field.

Dependencies

#422
netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent#218

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

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.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 31, 2023

@jpinsonneau: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1379 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

This PR adds dns error number field & filter.
It also ensure dns latency metrics query to run only on flows containing DnsLatencyMs field.

image
image

Dependencies

Based on #422
netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent#218

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

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.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 31, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 15 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (a31b8a6) 58.14% compared to head (0251918) 57.57%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #425      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   58.14%   57.57%   -0.58%     
==========================================
  Files         169      170       +1     
  Lines        7958     8058     +100     
  Branches      986      990       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         4627     4639      +12     
- Misses       3053     3140      +87     
- Partials      278      279       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 58.61% <66.66%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unittests 54.61% <61.90%> (-2.17%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Coverage Δ
pkg/model/fields/fields.go 100.00% <ø> (ø)
web/src/api/ipfix.ts 100.00% <ø> (ø)
web/src/components/netflow-traffic.tsx 58.65% <ø> (ø)
web/src/model/filters.ts 78.46% <ø> (ø)
web/src/utils/filter-definitions.ts 66.66% <ø> (ø)
web/src/utils/columns.ts 66.29% <66.66%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
web/src/utils/dns.ts 80.00% <80.00%> (ø)
pkg/loki/topology_query.go 56.68% <86.66%> (-0.46%) ⬇️
web/src/components/netflow-record/record-field.tsx 64.38% <75.00%> (+0.09%) ⬆️
web/src/utils/filter-options.ts 50.00% <40.00%> (-1.17%) ⬇️
... and 1 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@msherif1234
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 31, 2023

@jpinsonneau: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1379 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

This PR adds dns error number field & filter.
It also ensure dns latency metrics query to run only on flows containing DnsLatencyMs field.

image
image
image

Dependencies

Based on #422
netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent#218

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

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.

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
@netobserv netobserv deleted a comment from github-actions bot Oct 31, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
@netobserv netobserv deleted a comment from github-actions bot Oct 31, 2023
@netobserv netobserv deleted a comment from github-actions bot Oct 31, 2023
@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
@netobserv netobserv deleted a comment from github-actions bot Oct 31, 2023
@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Oct 31, 2023
Copy link

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin:b81a3b8

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=b81a3b8 make set-plugin-image

@@ -398,6 +399,7 @@
"Time elapsed between DNS request and response.": "Time elapsed between DNS request and response.",
"DNS Response Code": "DNS Response Code",
"DNS RCODE name from response header.": "DNS RCODE name from response header.",
"DNS error number returned by bpf_skb_load_bytes function.": "DNS error number returned by bpf_skb_load_bytes function.",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would say error code returned from DNS tracker ebpf hook because it doesn't have to be return from bpf_skb_load_bytes plus this too much details to show here IMO

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, sounds better ! 8ffc6cb

@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ export const LatencyDonut: React.FC<LatencyDonutProps> = ({
name: (m as NamedMetric).fullName || (m as GenericMetric).name,
value: getStat(m.stats, 'avg')
}))
.filter(m => !othersName || m.name !== othersName)
Copy link
Contributor

@msherif1234 msherif1234 Nov 1, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can u pls explain what this change for ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau Nov 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Previously I was querying response codes different from NoError and finding back the NoError count from totals.

|~`"DnsFlagsResponseCode"`!~`"DnsFlagsResponseCode":"NoError"`

This has been changed to all response codes for consistency:

|~`"DnsFlagsResponseCode"`

so the filtering needs to be done on client side when showOthers is not true.

filtered.push(others);
}
filtered = filtered.slice(0, limit);
const filtered = topKMetrics.filter(m => showOthers || (othersName && m.name !== othersName)).slice(0, limit);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this change too pls explain is it relevant to DNSErrno change ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same as #425 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor

@msherif1234 msherif1234 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I reviewed the changes to the best I can and added few comments PTAL Thanks!!

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Nov 2, 2023
@msherif1234
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@msherif1234
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Nov 2, 2023
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 2, 2023

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin:5e1c444

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=5e1c444 make set-plugin-image

@Amoghrd
Copy link
Contributor

Amoghrd commented Nov 6, 2023

/label qe-approved

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the qe-approved QE has approved this pull request label Nov 6, 2023
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 6, 2023

@jpinsonneau: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1379 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

This PR adds dns error number field & filter.
It also ensure dns latency metrics query to run only on flows containing DnsLatencyMs field.

image
image
image

Dependencies

Based on #422
netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent#218

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

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.

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 7, 2023

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Nov 7, 2023
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 7, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by:

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-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 6d73e0a into netobserv:main Nov 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants