NETOBSERV-1619: use dedicated metrics ports for netobserv to avoid conflicts #628
Conversation
|
@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1619 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 "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
msherif1234
force-pushed
the
reserve-metrics-ports
branch
5 times, most recently
from
4006628 to
f9884bf
Compare
…nflicts Signed-off-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <[email protected]>
msherif1234
force-pushed
the
reserve-metrics-ports
branch
from
f9884bf to
9a76710
Compare
|
/ok-to-test |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
ok-to-test
|
New images:
They will expire after two weeks. To deploy this build: # Direct deployment, from operator repo
IMAGE=quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-operator:6626557 make deploy
# Or using operator-sdk
operator-sdk run bundle quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-operator-bundle:v0.0.0-6626557Or as a Catalog Source: apiVersion: operators.coreos.com/v1alpha1
kind: CatalogSource
metadata:
name: netobserv-dev
namespace: openshift-marketplace
spec:
sourceType: grpc
image: quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-operator-catalog:v0.0.0-6626557
displayName: NetObserv development catalog
publisher: Me
updateStrategy:
registryPoll:
interval: 1m |
|
|
| // The prometheus HTTP port | ||
| Port int32 `json:"port,omitempty"` | ||
| Port *int32 `json:"port,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure to understand why we have to change the approach here and to use a pointer instead of kubebuilder:default.
Most of the integer here are not pointer, I think it would be better to stay consistent but may be I am missing something.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it make the check if the field is provisioned or not so u can install default vs checking for port value of 0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But isn't it the goal of kubebuilder:default to check if the field is provisioned and to set it to default if it is not?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this structure is used by ebpf and flp since they use different default we can't use kubebuilder default in this case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not seeing the difference here, to my understanding, in both case, the user does not set the port, and in one case kubebuilder does the work of setting it to the default value and in the other one we check if it is nil and set the default value manually.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Our messages crossed, thanks, for the explanation.
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: msherif1234 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 |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #628 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 66.33% 66.34%
=======================================
Files 67 67
Lines 7429 7449 +20
=======================================
+ Hits 4928 4942 +14
- Misses 2144 2149 +5
- Partials 357 358 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Description
use dedicated metrics ports for netobserv
Dependencies
openshift/enhancements#1612
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.