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

fix: do not try to use put_dimensions to merge dimension sets #5075

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 10, 2025

Conversation

roypat
Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat commented Mar 10, 2025

That's apparently not how that function works. Instead, it just associates a completely separate dimension set with the metric-to-be-emitted, and then emits it twice (with different dimensions sets). Needless to say, that's not what we want, so go back to centrally configuring all metrics with a single call to set_dimensions.

Fixes: 31ee851

Changes

...

Reason

...

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

That's apparently not how that function works. Instead, it just
associates a completely separate dimension set with the
metric-to-be-emitted, and then emits it twice (with different dimensions
sets). Needless to say, that's not what we want, so go back to centrally
configuring all metrics with a single call to set_dimensions.

Fixes: 31ee851
Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <roypat@amazon.co.uk>
@roypat roypat added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Mar 10, 2025
@roypat roypat merged commit db6d29b into firecracker-microvm:main Mar 10, 2025
4 of 5 checks passed
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 10, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.18%. Comparing base (ee47730) to head (f45b2f5).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5075   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.18%   83.18%           
=======================================
  Files         247      247           
  Lines       26816    26816           
=======================================
  Hits        22306    22306           
  Misses       4510     4510           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 83.62% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 83.60% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6a.metal 82.82% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6g.metal 79.60% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 83.60% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7g.metal 79.60% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 83.62% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 83.60% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6a.metal 82.82% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m6g.metal 79.60% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 83.60% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7g.metal 79.60% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants