Thank you @Sinscerly for your contribution. Before I can start building your PR, a member of the organization must set the required label(s) {'reviewed/ok-to-test'}. Once started, you can check the build status in the PR checks section below.

@Sinscerly Thank you for your contribution.

Hi @Sinscerly, thank you for your contribution.
I had a chat with @vicwicker about this and we have a couple of thoughts:

• We can't simply rename a metric, we would have to deprecate the old metric and create a new metric to give consumers (i.e. only the gardener/gardener in our case) the chance to update recording rules and alerts.
• If the concern is clarifying that it's about worker groups rather than the actual nodes, the name should probably be garden_shoot_worker_group_info.
• At the moment, we don't really see it as a pressing issue, seeing how the label is called worker_group and not so misleading. I appreciate the sentiment though, and willing to change my mind about it ;)

Hi @rickardsjp.

It's understandable that renaming directly might not be feasible. I would agree to introduce the new renamed metric initially, followed by deprecating the old one.

Currently, the naming convention for worker groups appears to be 'worker,' based on my review of the code. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a glance at the Gardener code (https://gardener.cloud/docs/gardener/api-reference/core/#worker) and previously submitted code for the metrics exporter reveals metrics such as 'garden_shoot_worker_node_min_total' and 'garden_shoot_worker_node_max_total'.

Additionally, my main issue is that 'garden_shoot_node_info' seems to be an inappropriate name for the metrics it returns.

I'll add another PR for the duplicated line; garden_shoot_operation_states.