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

Add MetricProfile In-Memory Storage Collection #1259

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 24, 2024

Conversation

shreyabiradar07
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR implements in-memory storage of MetricProfile during Autotune initialization and after creating a new metric profile

NOTE: this PR is created on top of #1258 and has a dependency to be merged first

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • New feature
  • Docs update
  • Breaking change (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
  • Requires DB changes

How has this been tested?

Tested using local_monitoring demo script

Test Configuration

  • Kubernetes clusters tested on: minikube, openshift

Checklist 🎯

  • Followed coding guidelines
  • Comments added
  • Dependent changes merged
  • Documentation updated
  • Tests added or updated

Additional information

.

@shreyabiradar07 shreyabiradar07 self-assigned this Aug 13, 2024
@shreyabiradar07 shreyabiradar07 added enhancement New feature or request kruize-local Tag for mentioning all the PR's and issues raised which covers the kruize local monitoring usecase labels Aug 13, 2024
metricProfileCollection.put(metricProfileName, metricProfile);
}
}
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

eof missing

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

public void setSlo(JsonNode slo) {
this.slo = slo;
}
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

eof missing

}
response.sendError(httpStatusCode, errorMsg);
}
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

eof is missing

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

Copy link
Contributor

@msvinaykumar msvinaykumar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review Checklist

Common Review

  • Code formatting adheres to the project’s style guide.
  • No unnecessary commented-out code.
  • Appropriate use of comments and documentation.

Logical Flow Review

  • Code logic is clear and easy to follow.
  • All branches and conditions are covered and tested.
  • No redundant or duplicate code.

Demo Update

  • Demonstration examples are updated to reflect changes.
  • README and documentation include updated demo instructions.
  • Any necessary demo files are included and tested.

Naming Conventions

  • Variable and function names follow the project's naming conventions.
  • File names are descriptive and adhere to naming standards.
  • No ambiguous or misleading names.

Workflow

  • CI/CD pipelines are updated and passing.
  • Tests are included and all pass.
  • The workflow for deploying or integrating changes is clear and documented.

Does It Affect ROS

  • Changes are reviewed for compatibility with ROS.
  • ROS-specific configurations are updated if necessary.
  • Any ROS dependencies or integrations are tested and verified.

@msvinaykumar
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@chandrams chandrams 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

@msvinaykumar msvinaykumar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review Checklist

Common Review

  • Code formatting adheres to the project’s style guide.
  • No unnecessary commented-out code.
  • Appropriate use of comments and documentation.

Logical Flow Review

  • Code logic is clear and easy to follow.
  • All branches and conditions are covered and tested.
  • No redundant or duplicate code.

Demo Update

  • Demonstration examples are updated to reflect changes.
  • README and documentation include updated demo instructions.
  • Any necessary demo files are included and tested.

Naming Conventions

  • Variable and function names follow the project's naming conventions.
  • File names are descriptive and adhere to naming standards.
  • No ambiguous or misleading names.

Workflow

  • CI/CD pipelines are updated and passing.
  • Tests are included and all pass.
  • The workflow for deploying or integrating changes is clear and documented.

Does It Affect ROS

  • Changes are reviewed for compatibility with ROS.
  • ROS-specific configurations are updated if necessary.
  • Any ROS dependencies or integrations are tested and verified.

@msvinaykumar
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@dinogun dinogun merged commit c2abc7a into kruize:mvp_demo Aug 24, 2024
2 of 3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request kruize-local Tag for mentioning all the PR's and issues raised which covers the kruize local monitoring usecase
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants