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

VTGate Warnings: Add WarnUnshardedOnly to warnings counter #15033

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 14, 2024

Conversation

tycol7
Copy link
Contributor

@tycol7 tycol7 commented Jan 25, 2024

Description

When running VTGate with the --warn_sharded_only flag, increment the warnings count when executing a query that is supported in an unsharded keyspace but not supported in a sharded one.

Useful for reporting purposes.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

N/A

When running VTGate with the `--warn_sharded_only` flag, increment the
warnings count when executing a query that is supported in an unsharded
keyspace but not supported in a sharded one.

Signed-off-by: Tyler Coleman <tyler@planetscale.com>
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jan 25, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Jan 25, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Jan 25, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 25, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (2162883) 47.50% compared to head (20adf7e) 47.50%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #15033   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   47.50%   47.50%           
=======================================
  Files        1149     1149           
  Lines      239324   239325    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits       113682   113694   +12     
+ Misses     117053   117044    -9     
+ Partials     8589     8587    -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@deepthi deepthi added Component: Observability Pull requests that touch tracing/metrics/monitoring and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Jan 25, 2024
Copy link
Member

@deepthi deepthi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks fine to me. I'll let @harshit-gangal say whether this needs a separate issue.
This PR will most likely conflict with #15010 from @maxenglander. Whichever of these is merged first, the other one will need conflict resolution before merge.

Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I merged the other one. This need conflict resolution.

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) and removed NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request labels Jan 25, 2024
…only-count

Signed-off-by: Tyler Coleman <tyler@planetscale.com>
Signed-off-by: Tyler Coleman <tyler@planetscale.com>
@frouioui frouioui modified the milestones: v19.0.0, v20.0.0 Feb 6, 2024
@frouioui frouioui merged commit db5aedd into vitessio:main Feb 14, 2024
102 checks passed
@frouioui frouioui deleted the tdc-warn-unsharded-only-count branch February 14, 2024 16:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Observability Pull requests that touch tracing/metrics/monitoring Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants