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

Improve asciidocs #809

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 17, 2024
Merged

Improve asciidocs #809

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 17, 2024

Conversation

jpinsonneau
Copy link
Contributor

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau commented Oct 8, 2024

Description

  • moved cardinalities and loki labels out of frontend config using separated JSONs
  • get OTEL configs from JSON

Preview: https://github.com/netobserv/network-observability-operator/blob/ascii_docs/docs/flows-format.adoc

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).

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 8, 2024

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau marked this pull request as ready for review October 8, 2024 14:00
@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau requested a review from jotak October 8, 2024 14:00
echo -e '|===' >> $ADOC
echo -e '| Name | Type | Description | Filter ID | Loki label | Cardinality' >> $ADOC
echo -e '| Name | Type | Description | Filter ID | Loki label | Cardinality | Otel' >> $ADOC
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since this ends up in the downstream doc we should write the official name and not "otel"

Suggested change
echo -e '| Name | Type | Description | Filter ID | Loki label | Cardinality | Otel' >> $ADOC
echo -e '| Name | Type | Description | Filter ID | Loki label | Cardinality | OpenTelemetry' >> $ADOC

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done in 5eecbd5


//go:embed cardinality.json
var rawCardinality []byte
var cardinality *map[string]Warn
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

map is already a reference we don't need a pointer here

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done in 5eecbd5

Comment on lines 17 to 18
var otelConfig *map[string]string
var otelRules *[]api.GenericTransformRule
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same here for slice & map, pointer is unnecessary

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done in 5eecbd5

Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

a few small comments and LGTM overall

@jotak jotak added the no-qe This PR doesn't necessitate QE approval label Oct 11, 2024
@jotak
Copy link
Member

jotak commented Oct 11, 2024

marking no-qe as it's only refactoring + doc gen without visible impact in product

@jpinsonneau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the feedback @jotak
If you are ok as is we can merge ;)

@skrthomas
Copy link
Contributor

I've opened openshift/openshift-docs#83465 to update the downstream docs. PTAL for approvals over there @jpinsonneau. This one LGTM!

@jotak
Copy link
Member

jotak commented Oct 17, 2024

/lgtm
/approve

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 17, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jotak

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

@jotak jotak merged commit eda7559 into main Oct 17, 2024
10 of 11 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved lgtm no-qe This PR doesn't necessitate QE approval
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants