-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 367
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
Remove kube_*_annotations
and kube_*_labels
from deny list
#2430
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Since kubernetes/kube-state-metrics#2145, kube-state-metrics does not collect `kube_*_annotations` or `kube_*_labels` metrics by default. It's no longer necessary to add them to the metrics' deny list. Removing `kube_*_annotations` from the deny list allows us to enable scrapping of annotation metrics via the `--metric-annotations-allowlist` option. Additionally, we were missing a comma, which might have been a problem in the comma-separated list of arguments.
/retest |
/label qe-approved |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this @mandre
I'd agree on removing config that has no effect especially if this will simply the implementation of new features; it seems that you're interested in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RFE-3553
But it'd be great to have a regression/safeguard e2e check that ensure kube_secret_labels
and kube_.+_annotations
are not present, in case upstream started allowing some/all of them again in the future.
@@ -38,8 +38,6 @@ spec: | |||
- --telemetry-port=8082 | |||
- | | |||
--metric-denylist= | |||
^kube_secret_labels$, | |||
^kube_.+_annotations$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Definitely not intentional, missed adding a comma there. I believe the other upstream patch went in before causing this to not blow up. Glad to see this was caught here!
/lgtm |
/hold
This is unlikely, but I'll leave it to @machine424 to remove the hold here. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mandre, rexagod 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@mandre: The following tests failed, say
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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
Since kubernetes/kube-state-metrics#2145, kube-state-metrics does not collect
kube_*_annotations
orkube_*_labels
metrics by default. It's no longer necessary to add them to the metrics' deny list.Removing
kube_*_annotations
from the deny list allows us to enable scrapping of annotation metrics via the--metric-annotations-allowlist
option.Additionally, we were missing a comma, which might have been a problem in the comma-separated list of arguments.