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

Remove kube_*_annotations and kube_*_labels from deny list #2430

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mandre
Copy link
Member

@mandre mandre commented Aug 2, 2024

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.

  • I added CHANGELOG entry for this change.
  • No user facing changes, so no entry in CHANGELOG was needed.

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.
@juzhao
Copy link
Contributor

juzhao commented Sep 6, 2024

/retest

@juzhao
Copy link
Contributor

juzhao commented Sep 6, 2024

/label qe-approved

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the qe-approved Signifies that QE has signed off on this PR label Sep 6, 2024
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Dec 5, 2024
@mandre
Copy link
Member Author

mandre commented Dec 9, 2024

/remove-lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Dec 9, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@machine424 machine424 left a 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$,
^kube_.+_annotations$
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

cc @rexagod, apparently the comma was omitted during bc1174a, not sure if this was intentional.

Copy link
Member

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!

@rexagod
Copy link
Member

rexagod commented Jan 8, 2025

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 8, 2025
@rexagod
Copy link
Member

rexagod commented Jan 8, 2025

/hold

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.

This is unlikely, but I'll leave it to @machine424 to remove the hold here.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 8, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 8, 2025

[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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 8, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 17, 2025

@mandre: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-operator 6c46dd9 link true /test e2e-agnostic-operator
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn 6c46dd9 link true /test e2e-aws-ovn
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade 6c46dd9 link true /test e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview 6c46dd9 link true /test e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. qe-approved Signifies that QE has signed off on this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants