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

[coordinator] Add continue to rule when matching Graphite rules #2063

Conversation

robskillington
Copy link
Collaborator

What this PR does / why we need it:

Allows multiple graphite rules to be matched.

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing and/or backwards incompatible change?:

NONE

Does this PR require updating code package or user-facing documentation?:

NONE

Copy link
Collaborator

@yinovator yinovator left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good to me.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 6, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #2063 into r/fix-graphite-tag-options-end-to-end will increase coverage by 12.6%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@                           Coverage Diff                            @@
##           r/fix-graphite-tag-options-end-to-end   #2063      +/-   ##
========================================================================
+ Coverage                                   59.4%     72%   +12.6%     
========================================================================
  Files                                        864    1006     +142     
  Lines                                      76619   86990   +10371     
========================================================================
+ Hits                                       45555   62699   +17144     
+ Misses                                     27533   20024    -7509     
- Partials                                    3531    4267     +736
Flag Coverage Δ
#aggregator 82% <ø> (+8.4%) ⬆️
#cluster 85.6% <ø> (+33.5%) ⬆️
#collector 64.8% <ø> (+8.9%) ⬆️
#dbnode 78.1% <ø> (+23.8%) ⬆️
#m3em 73.2% <ø> (+10.8%) ⬆️
#m3ninx 73.9% <ø> (+9.2%) ⬆️
#m3nsch 51.1% <ø> (-26.9%) ⬇️
#metrics 17.7% <ø> (-82.3%) ⬇️
#msg 74.7% <ø> (+1.1%) ⬆️
#query 69.8% <ø> (+13.7%) ⬆️
#x 83.5% <ø> (+3.1%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 96aaa17...982c704. Read the comment docs.

Comment on lines 250 to 251
// Break because we only want to apply one rule per metric based on which
// ever one matches first.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This comment is no longer valid right?

@robskillington robskillington added this to Reviewing in Release v0.15 Jan 3, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@arnikola arnikola left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

break
}
}
err := i.writeWithOptions(ctx, resources, timestamp, value,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could throw these writes into a consumer queue if rule.rule.Continue is true? Don't know if it's necessary atm

@arnikola arnikola moved this from Reviewing to Needs Merge in Release v0.15 Jan 3, 2020
@robskillington robskillington merged commit 9445b04 into r/fix-graphite-tag-options-end-to-end Jan 7, 2020
@robskillington robskillington deleted the r/add-continue-rule-for-graphite-rules branch January 7, 2020 19:18
@robskillington robskillington moved this from Needs Merge to Done in Release v0.15 Jan 7, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants