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

Update fmatch version and not set keys #7

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 30, 2024

Conversation

paigerube14
Copy link
Collaborator

Type of change

  • Refactor
  • New feature
  • Bug fix
  • Optimization
  • Documentation Update

Description

Saw that there was an update version of fmatch that I think we should go ahead and update

The set columns that were defined in get_metadata did not allow for defining extra variables like clusterType for rosa/hcp or defining infraNodeCounts

Related Tickets & Documents

  • Related Issue #
  • Closes #

Checklist before requesting a review

  • I have performed a self-review of my code.
  • If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.

Testing

  • Please describe the System Under Test.
  • Please provide detailed steps to perform tests related to this code change.
  • How were the fix/results from this change verified? Please provide relevant screenshots or results.
tests :
  - name : rosa-small-scale-cluster-density-v2
    platform: AWS
    workerNodesType: m5.xlarge
    workerNodesCount: 24
    benchmark: cluster-density-v2
    ocpVersion: 4.15
    networkType: OVNKubernetes
    clusterType: rosa
    masterNodesCount: 3
    metrics : 
    - metric : podReadyLatency
      metricType : latency
      
    - metric : apiserverCPU
      metricType : cpu
      namespace: openshift-kube-apiserver

    - metric: ovnCPU
      metricType: cpu
      namespace: openshift-ovn-kubernetes
    
    - metric: etcdCPU
      metricType: cpu
      namespace: openshift-ovn-kubernetes

@@ -117,21 +117,13 @@ def get_metadata(test):
Returns:
dict: dictionary of the metadata
"""
metadata_columns = [
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if we keep some aspect of "known fields" and have Orion spit out if the user provides a field that is unknown?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree with this, having a known fields will filter out any unknown fields which the user might include in the config file.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just dont know if we should keep a list of columns if they are going to continue to change. Like how we added fips and etcd. Don't think we should constantly try to keep up to date with it

Signed-off-by: Paige Rubendall <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paige Rubendall <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paige Rubendall <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paige Rubendall <[email protected]>
@paigerube14 paigerube14 mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2024
7 tasks
@jtaleric jtaleric self-requested a review January 30, 2024 22:09
Copy link
Member

@jtaleric jtaleric left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

@shashank-boyapally shashank-boyapally left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm!!

@@ -117,21 +117,13 @@ def get_metadata(test):
Returns:
dict: dictionary of the metadata
"""
metadata_columns = [
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree with this, having a known fields will filter out any unknown fields which the user might include in the config file.

@jtaleric jtaleric merged commit 6ed1919 into cloud-bulldozer:main Jan 30, 2024
5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants