Skip to content

Conversation

luisjira
Copy link
Contributor

@luisjira luisjira commented Oct 9, 2025

Description

Creates a new package "maps" and verifies that the map names defined in eBPF and in .mk/bc.mk match the names in the package.
The package can be imported in the operator to prevent any map name mismatches.

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
  • [ x] Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
    • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
    • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
    • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
    • [] Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
    • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
    • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

To run a perfscale test, comment with: /test ebpf-node-density-heavy-25nodes

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 9, 2025

@luisjira: This pull request references NETOBSERV-2364 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Creates a new package "maps" and verifies that the map names defined in eBPF and in .mk/bc.mk match the names in the package.
The package can be imported in the operator to prevent any map name mismatches.

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
  • [ x] Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • [x ] Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

To run a perfscale test, comment with: /test ebpf-node-density-heavy-25nodes

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

you should rune make fmt to format all the files 😉

Comment on lines 22 to 23
- name: Verify map names consistency
run: make verify-maps
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Isn't it already covered by test target since it's under pkg/maps ?
We should either remove that or change the paths to exclude maps checks from tests 🤔

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 , as this is ending up in regular tests, we can avoid creating a new make target and this check: it's already covered

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 12, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 29.67%. Comparing base (cbf1417) to head (025766f).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #811      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   29.74%   29.67%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          49       49              
  Lines        5355     5355              
==========================================
- Hits         1593     1589       -4     
- Misses       3645     3648       +3     
- Partials      117      118       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 29.67% <ø> (-0.08%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

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

Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 to @jpinsonneau comments, other than that lgtm!

Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @luisjira !
/lgtm

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 14, 2025

@luisjira: 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/netobserv-cli-tests affd468 link false /test netobserv-cli-tests
ci/prow/qe-e2e-tests affd468 link false /test qe-e2e-tests

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.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 21, 2025

@luisjira: This pull request references NETOBSERV-2364 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Creates a new package "maps" and verifies that the map names defined in eBPF and in .mk/bc.mk match the names in the package.
The package can be imported in the operator to prevent any map name mismatches.

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
  • [ x] Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • [] Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

To run a perfscale test, comment with: /test ebpf-node-density-heavy-25nodes

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@luisjira
Copy link
Contributor Author

/approve

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 21, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by: luisjira

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

@luisjira luisjira merged commit e9ebab7 into netobserv:main Oct 21, 2025
9 of 11 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants