Integration test: distributor/querier/ruler legacy name validation #11855
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
overall these make sense, but I'm wondering if a unit test wouldn't be a better fit for this. It can be run with much more inputs and takes much less time. There's already some unit tests for this kind of assertions in pkg/distributor/validate_test.go (TestDistributor_ValidateSeries), for the ruler in pkg/ruler/api_test.go (TestAPI_CreateRuleGroup) and the query-frontend in pkg/frontend/v2/frontend_test.go (TestFrontendEnqueueFailures)
|
|
||
| // TestLegacyNameValidation_DistributorWrite ensures that distributors discard invalid | ||
| // metric and label names in the write path. | ||
| func TestLegacyNameValidation_DistributorWrite(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this looks like a copied version of testDistributorCases. Did you try to reuse that?
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func testLegacyNameValidationQuerier(t *testing.T, queryEngine string) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it might be more valuable to test this on the query-frontend. That's the component which will first receive the queries.
What this PR does
Add integration test(s) that ensure distributor/ruler/querier use legacy name validation.
There are a couple of interesting things to see here:
RuleGroup.Labels, onlyRuleGroup.Rules.LabelsRule.ExprChecklist
CHANGELOG.mdupdated - the order of entries should be[CHANGE],[FEATURE],[ENHANCEMENT],[BUGFIX]. If changelog entry is not needed, please add thechangelog-not-neededlabel to the PR.about-versioning.mdupdated with experimental features.