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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

NETOBSERV-1203: New Features field for FLP #540

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

NETOBSERV-1203: New Features field for FLP #540

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jotak
Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak commented Jan 26, 2024

Description

Follow-up on #537

Move MultiCluster and Zone into a new Feature enum/list, similar to Agent's features.

This should be backported to 1.5

Dependencies

n/a

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).

@jotak
NETOBSERV-1203: New Features field for FLP
d6efc46 
Move MultiCluster and Zone into a new Feature enum/list, similar to
Agent's features
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Jan 26, 2024 •
edited by openshift-ci bot
Loading

@jotak: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1203 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 story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Follow-up on #537

Move MultiCluster and Zone into a new Feature enum/list, similar to Agent's features.

This should be backported to 1.5

Dependencies

n/a

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@jotak jotak requested a review from OlivierCazade January 26, 2024 17:07
@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 26, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from jotak. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 26, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: 20 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (a01f2d9) 57.93% compared to head (d6efc46) 57.63%.

Files Patch % Lines
...pis/flowcollector/v1beta1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
...pis/flowcollector/v1beta2/zz_generated.deepcopy.go 0.00% 3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
pkg/helper/flowcollector.go 71.42% 3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...is/flowcollector/v1alpha1/flowcollector_webhook.go 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
.../flowcollector/v1alpha1/zz_generated.conversion.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
controllers/ebpf/agent_controller.go 0.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
controllers/flp/flp_pipeline_builder.go 50.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
pkg/loki/labels.go 0.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #540      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   57.93%   57.63%   -0.31%     
==========================================
  Files          72       72              
  Lines        9524     9543      +19     
==========================================
- Hits         5518     5500      -18     
- Misses       3673     3704      +31     
- Partials      333      339       +6
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 57.63% <56.52%> (-0.31%) ⬇️

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

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

@jotak
Copy link
Member Author

jotak commented Jan 29, 2024

/hold
I want to discuss more about this / plan more about next potential features to come and if they fit well this model, e.g. with custom ip categorization / labelling.

OlivierCazade
OlivierCazade approved these changes Jan 29, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@OlivierCazade OlivierCazade left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, my comment here is hypotetical, it will only be a problem if we want some features enabled by default.

apis/flowcollector/v1beta2/flowcollector_types.go
// - `Zone`: allows availability zone awareness by labelling flows with their source and destination zones.
// This feature requires the "topology.kubernetes.io/zone" label to be set on nodes.<br>
// +optional
Features []ProcessorFeature `json:"features,omitempty"`
Copy link
Contributor

@OlivierCazade OlivierCazade Jan 29, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The approach of having a list of feature is fine as long as we don't want some feature enabled by default. Then it can becomes a bit misleading for the user.

Lets say we want Zone enabled by default. If a user wants to enable Multicluster, the user will have to go from not set to ["Zone", "MultiCluster"]. Many users could inadvertently disable the default feature.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jan 29, 2024
@jotak jotak mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2024
Merged
10 tasks
@jotak
Copy link
Member Author

jotak commented Jan 29, 2024

superseded by #545

@jotak jotak closed this Jan 29, 2024
@jotak jotak deleted the flp-features branch February 8, 2024 09:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@OlivierCazade OlivierCazade OlivierCazade approved these changes

@msherif1234 msherif1234 Awaiting requested review from msherif1234

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau Awaiting requested review from jpinsonneau

Assignees

@OlivierCazade OlivierCazade

Labels
do-not-merge/hold jira/valid-reference lgtm
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@jotak @openshift-ci-robot @OlivierCazade