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

Actuator date-time values are not compliant with rfc3339 #16256

Closed
richardbizik opened this issue Feb 7, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #16317
Closed

Actuator date-time values are not compliant with rfc3339 #16256

richardbizik opened this issue Feb 7, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #16317
Assignees
Labels
area/ux Marks an issue as related to improving the user experience good first issue Marks an issue as simple enough for first time contributors kind/toil Categorizes an issue or PR as general maintenance, i.e. cleanup, refactoring, etc. version:8.4.5 Marks an issue as being completely or in parts released in 8.4.5 version:8.5.0-alpha2 Label that represents issues released on verions 8.5.0-alpha2

Comments

@richardbizik
Copy link

richardbizik commented Feb 7, 2024

Hi,
we are currently working on a custom k8s operator for zeebe and during the implementation of automatic scaling https://docs.camunda.io/docs/self-managed/zeebe-deployment/operations/cluster-scaling/ I encountered an issue with date-time values having bad formatting. For example here: https://github.com/camunda/zeebe/blob/9b2059f6e3439f4642d49a1195c5a4c267861c98/dist/src/main/resources/api/cluster-api.yaml#L270
the response contains value -999999999-01-01T00:00:00+18:00
According to RFC3339 the year should be a 4 digit number https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3339#section-5.6
The operator is implemented in Go and Go has a pretty strict parsing of rfc3339.

full response for GET http://localhost:9600/actuator/cluster:

{
	"version": 2,
	"brokers": [
		{
			"id": 0,
			"state": "ACTIVE",
			"version": 0,
			"lastUpdatedAt": "-999999999-01-01T00:00:00+18:00",
			"partitions": [
				{
					"id": 1,
					"state": "ACTIVE",
					"priority": 1
				}
			]
		}
	],
	"pendingChange": {
		"id": 2,
		"status": "IN_PROGRESS",
		"completed": [],
		"pending": [
			{
				"operation": "BROKER_ADD",
				"brokerId": 1
			}
		]
	}
}
@npepinpe npepinpe added good first issue Marks an issue as simple enough for first time contributors area/ux Marks an issue as related to improving the user experience kind/toil Categorizes an issue or PR as general maintenance, i.e. cleanup, refactoring, etc. labels Feb 8, 2024
@npepinpe
Copy link
Member

npepinpe commented Feb 8, 2024

ZDP: let's do it next week as it's a simple thing, and it makes sense to provide a more user friendly default value.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/ux Marks an issue as related to improving the user experience good first issue Marks an issue as simple enough for first time contributors kind/toil Categorizes an issue or PR as general maintenance, i.e. cleanup, refactoring, etc. version:8.4.5 Marks an issue as being completely or in parts released in 8.4.5 version:8.5.0-alpha2 Label that represents issues released on verions 8.5.0-alpha2
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants