Skip to content

Conversation

@z1c0
Copy link
Contributor

@z1c0 z1c0 commented Sep 19, 2022

This is a follow-up of #678 as suggested by @felixbarny in #678 (comment).
The existing tests in apm-agent-dotnet served as the source for these json-specs test data.
Once this PR is merged, apm-dotnet-agent will also switch to using json-specs as input (FYI @gregkalapos).

@z1c0 z1c0 requested review from a team September 19, 2022 12:19
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 19, 2022

💚 Build Succeeded

the below badges are clickable and redirect to their specific view in the CI or DOCS
Pipeline View Test View Changes Artifacts preview preview

Expand to view the summary

Build stats

  • Start Time: 2022-09-26T04:25:00.932+0000

  • Duration: 7 min 4 sec

@z1c0 z1c0 force-pushed the cgroup_parsing_test branch from 9c814cf to 9845f06 Compare September 19, 2022 13:05
@z1c0 z1c0 requested a review from a team as a code owner September 19, 2022 13:05
@SylvainJuge
Copy link
Member

There are also quite a lot of other variants in Java agent test: https://github.com/elastic/apm-agent-java/blob/e9aacfdd2551dd52baae5881079c8597ea3d8cca/apm-agent-core/src/test/java/co/elastic/apm/agent/impl/metadata/ContainerInfoTest.java#L31

We could however add those in a follow-up PR when the Java agent has automated tests with this new JSON specification, but maybe if there are other parsed attributes it could be relevant to look at those too.

@z1c0
Copy link
Contributor Author

z1c0 commented Sep 20, 2022

There are also quite a lot of other variants in Java agent test: elastic/apm-agent-java@e9aacfd/apm-agent-core/src/test/java/co/elastic/apm/agent/impl/metadata/ContainerInfoTest.java#L31

We could however add those in a follow-up PR when the Java agent has automated tests with this new JSON specification, but maybe if there are other parsed attributes it could be relevant to look at those too.

Agreed, that sounds like a good follow-up once this PR is through.

@z1c0
Copy link
Contributor Author

z1c0 commented Sep 26, 2022

Hi @SylvainJuge are you fine with the PR in its current state or would you expect further changes?
Thanks, Wolfgang

Copy link
Member

@SylvainJuge SylvainJuge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, follow-up issues/PRs are expected once agents add those tests in their respective codebases.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants