MON-3669: fix join issue in cluster:capacity_effective_cpu_cores

[kahowell]

Related: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MON-3669.

This addresses a bug where 0 was the effective value due to label mismatches in cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id.

When we added a recording rule named cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id, the recorded time series includes a tenant_id label and so it's not equivalent to the expression it replaced.

Adding tenant_id to the sum by expression makes it properly match the cluster:cpu_cpacity_cores:_id series.

[openshift-ci]

Hi @kahowell. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a openshift member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@kahowell: This pull request references MON-3669 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Simplify by dividing all x86_64 cpu counts in 2.

This also addresses a bug where 0 was the effective value due to label mismatches in cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id.

When we added a recording rule named cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id, the recorded time series includes a tenant_id label and so it's not equivalent to the expression it replaced.

Use of on (_id) clauses ignores the additional label.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@kahowell: No Jira issue is referenced in the title of this pull request.
To reference a jira issue, add 'XYZ-NNN:' to the title of this pull request and request another refresh with /jira refresh.

In response to this:

Simplify by dividing all x86_64 cpu counts in 2.

This also addresses a bug where 0 was the effective value due to label mismatches in cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id.

When we added a recording rule named cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id, the recorded time series includes a tenant_id label and so it's not equivalent to the expression it replaced.

Use of on (_id) clauses ignores the additional label.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[simonpasquier]

/retitle MON-3669: fix join issue in cluster:capacity_effective_cpu_cores

[openshift-ci-robot]

@kahowell: This pull request references MON-3669 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Related: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MON-3669.

Simplify by dividing all x86_64 cpu counts in 2.

This also addresses a bug where 0 was the effective value due to label mismatches in cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id.

When we added a recording rule named cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id, the recorded time series includes a tenant_id label and so it's not equivalent to the expression it replaced.

Use of on (_id) clauses ignores the additional label.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@kahowell: This pull request references MON-3669 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Related: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MON-3669.

Simplify by dividing all x86_64 cpu counts in 2.

This also addresses a bug where 0 was the effective value due to label mismatches in cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id.

When we added a recording rule named cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id, the recorded time series includes a tenant_id label and so it's not equivalent to the expression it replaced.

Adding tenant_id to the sum by expression makes it properly match the cluster:cpu_cpacity_cores:_id series.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@kahowell: This pull request references MON-3669 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Related: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MON-3669.

This addresses a bug where 0 was the effective value due to label mismatches in cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id.

When we added a recording rule named cluster:cpu_capacity_cores:_id, the recorded time series includes a tenant_id label and so it's not equivalent to the expression it replaced.

Adding tenant_id to the sum by expression makes it properly match the cluster:cpu_cpacity_cores:_id series.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[simonpasquier]

/ok-to-test

[simonpasquier]

/lgtm
/approve

[simonpasquier]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kahowell, simonpasquier

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [simonpasquier]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[simonpasquier]

/retest-required

[openshift-ci]

@kahowell: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[openshift-bot]

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

This PR has been included in build telemeter-container-v4.16.0-202402091340.p0.g323b9e3.assembly.stream.el9 for distgit telemeter.
All builds following this will include this PR.