add annotation metrics and ability to exclude. #1041

jw-s · 2020-01-31T18:29:28Z

What this PR does / why we need it:

Provides a metric which exposes annotations for that particular API kind.
Whitelist on all annotation related metrics, users will have to specify the annotation labels they would like to expose.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes annotation metrics, what is the future direction? #941

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-01-31T18:29:36Z

Welcome @jw-s!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/kube-state-metrics 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/kube-state-metrics has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

lilic

Thanks fro your PR, it's a large PR so might take a bit to review.

Do you mind fixing the docs tests, they need regeneration, that's why the tests are failing. Thanks!

pkg/options/options.go

olivierlemasle · 2020-02-19T17:08:43Z

docs/certificatessigningrequest-metrics.md

@@ -6,3 +6,4 @@
 | kube_certificatesigningrequest_condition | Gauge | `certificatesigningrequest`=&lt;certificatesigningrequest-name&gt; <br> `condition`=&lt;approved\|denied&gt; | STABLE |
 | kube_certificatesigningrequest_labels | Gauge | `certificatesigningrequest`=&lt;certificatesigningrequest-name&gt;| STABLE |
 | kube_certificatesigningrequest_cert_length | Gauge | `certificatesigningrequest`=&lt;certificatesigningrequest-name&gt;| STABLE |
+| kube_certificatesigningrequest_annotations | Gauge | `certificatesigningrequest`=&lt;certificatesigningrequest-name&gt;| EXPERIMENTAL |


Why don't you document the labels for all new metrics?
E.g. for ConfigMaps, you documented label annotation_CONFIGMAP_ANNOTATION=<CONFIGMAP_ANNOTATION>, but for CertificateSigningRequest, you don't document all labels.

Good catch, this should be consistent.

olivierlemasle · 2020-02-19T17:10:20Z

docs/persistentvolumeclaim-metrics.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 | kube_persistentvolumeclaim_resource_requests_storage_bytes | Gauge | `namespace`=&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-namespace&gt; <br> `persistentvolumeclaim`=&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-name&gt; | STABLE |
 | kube_persistentvolumeclaim_status_condition | Gauge | `namespace` =&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-namespace&gt; <br> `persistentvolumeclaim`=&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-name&gt; <br> `type`=&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-condition-type&gt; <br> `status`=&lt;true\|false\|unknown&gt;  | EXPERIMENTAL |
 | kube_persistentvolumeclaim_status_phase | Gauge | `namespace`=&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-namespace&gt; <br> `persistentvolumeclaim`=&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-name&gt; <br> `phase`=&lt;Pending\|Bound\|Lost&gt; | STABLE |
-
+| kube_persistentvolumeclaim_annotations | Gauge | `annotation_PERSISTENTVOLUMECLAIM_ANNOTATION`=&lt;PERSISTENTVOLUMECLAIM_ANNOTATION&gt; <br> `persistentvolumeclaim`=&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-name&gt; <br> `namespace`=&lt;persistentvolumeclaim-namespace&gt; | EXPERIMENTAL |
 Note:


Missing an empty line between the table and the line Note.

olivierlemasle

Two other remarks:

the --annotation-allowlist is not intuitive to use because filtering is done on annotations already transformed to Prometheus labels.
For example, to see the annotation volumes.kubernetes.io/controller-managed-attach-detach, you need to pass --annotation-allowlist="volumes_kubernetes_io_controller_managed_attach_detach". That's neither the real K8s annotation, nor the effective prometheus label (which is annotation_volumes_kubernetes_io_controller_managed_attach_detach).

When annotations are filtered out, we have this kind of results:

 # HELP kube_namespace_annotations Kubernetes annotations converted to Prometheus labels.
 # TYPE kube_namespace_annotations gauge
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1

I guess we should have either the other labels (namespace in that case) or no metric at all...

jw-s · 2020-02-20T07:57:03Z

Two other remarks:
the --annotation-allowlist is not intuitive to use because filtering is done on annotations already transformed to Prometheus labels.
For example, to see the annotation volumes.kubernetes.io/controller-managed-attach-detach, you need to pass --annotation-allowlist="volumes_kubernetes_io_controller_managed_attach_detach". That's neither the real K8s annotation, nor the effective prometheus label (which is annotation_volumes_kubernetes_io_controller_managed_attach_detach).
When annotations are filtered out, we have this kind of results:
 # HELP kube_namespace_annotations Kubernetes annotations converted to Prometheus labels.
 # TYPE kube_namespace_annotations gauge
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
 kube_namespace_annotations 1
I guess we should have either the other labels (namespace in that case) or no metric at all...

Completely agree, wanted to discuss this with everyone before doing the implementation. I feel we should allow (whitelist) default annotations i.e namespace or should we allow all metrics default labels?

lilic · 2020-02-27T11:43:14Z

Completely agree, wanted to discuss this with everyone before doing the implementation. I feel we should allow (whitelist) default annotations i.e namespace or should we allow all metrics default labels?

Having namespace by default included in the metric makes sense, users who don't want this can exclude this metric entirely, but not having the namespace label by default doesn't make the metric useful.

cc @brancz @tariq1890 any objections?

jw-s · 2020-03-02T12:57:28Z

Completely agree, wanted to discuss this with everyone before doing the implementation. I feel we should allow (whitelist) default annotations i.e namespace or should we allow all metrics default labels?

Having namespace by default included in the metric makes sense, users who don't want this can exclude this metric entirely, but not having the namespace label by default doesn't make the metric useful.

cc @brancz @tariq1890 any objections?

Only problem with this approach is it will only work for namespace scoped objects , my feeling was we include all metrics default labels.

jw-s · 2020-03-02T16:04:28Z

Just pushed the changes to allow each resource's Labels by default. What do you guys think? Will also make the cli argument name more intuitive.

lilic · 2020-03-10T10:24:03Z

@tariq1890 @brancz please also have a look

tariq1890 · 2020-03-12T08:05:55Z

internal/store/metriclabels.go

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+package store


This needs a license header

tariq1890 · 2020-03-12T08:06:23Z

internal/store/metriclabels.go

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+package store


Can we change the name to default_labels.go?

tariq1890 · 2020-03-12T08:15:34Z

docs/cli-arguments.md

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ $ kube-state-metrics -h
 Usage of ./kube-state-metrics:
      --add_dir_header                   If true, adds the file directory to the header
      --alsologtostderr                  log to standard error as well as files
+      --annotation-allowlist string      Comma-separated list of annotation labels to be exposed. This list comprises of exact annotation label names and/or regex patterns.


I prefer leaving out allowlist as a part of the param name since there is allow/deny dichotomy here.

Perhaps something along the lines of --annotation-filter?

Thoughts @brancz @lilic ?

tariq1890 · 2020-03-12T08:17:42Z

internal/store/endpoint_test.go

@@ -51,6 +53,10 @@ func TestEndpointStore(t *testing.T) {
 					Labels: map[string]string{
 						"app": "foobar",
 					},
+					Annotations: map[string]string{
+						"whitelisted":     "true",


The usage of whitelist and blacklist has some rather problematic undertones. As we are trying to be rid of them for the next major release, we should stick to allowed/denied.

tariq1890 · 2020-03-12T08:18:43Z

@jw-s Thank you so much for your hard work with this PR. It is really appreciated :). I've provided my first round of comments. Looks like you will need to rebase the PR as well.

Sorry for the delay.

lilic · 2020-10-07T08:59:50Z

Yes if its possible to reuse them then yes! To make it clear we want to end up with the following by default:

fooresource_labels{fooresource=“fooresourcename”, namespace=“fooresourcenamespace”}

Hope that makes more sense now?

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-10-08T21:33:45Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jw-s
To complete the pull request process, please assign brancz after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @brancz in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

lilic · 2020-10-13T13:33:00Z

@jw-s is this ready for another review?

jw-s · 2020-10-13T14:07:56Z

@lilic Yeah, though e2e tests are failing and no useful output in the logs, need to check why...

jw-s · 2020-10-27T08:27:58Z

@lilic Sorry i didn't have time to check this. Would be nice to get this in before the cut. Any way i can test the e2e locally?

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-10-27T08:28:05Z

@jw-s: PR needs rebase.

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/test-infra repository.

lilic · 2020-10-27T09:07:46Z

Yes you should be able to run them with make e2e and running docker https://github.com/kubernetes/kube-state-metrics/tree/master/tests

lilic · 2020-10-27T15:26:56Z

@jw-s could you possibly split the adding default labels into a separate PR and we can merge as bugfix in 2.0, as those should land in 2.0 release and annotation label metrics can land in a future release. Sounds good?

jw-s · 2020-10-27T22:41:10Z

@lilic Yeah I'll work on a PR tomorrow morning and hopefully get it done before the afternoon so it can be taken in the 2.0 cut.

fejta-bot · 2021-01-25T22:48:41Z

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

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

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

Mepemotrarial · 2021-02-05T12:24:49Z

@jw-s Any progress on this?

fejta-bot · 2021-03-07T12:43:09Z

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.

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

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten

fejta-bot · 2021-04-06T13:26:35Z

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-04-06T13:26:45Z

@fejta-bot: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close

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/test-infra repository.

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jan 31, 2020

k8s-ci-robot added the size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 31, 2020

k8s-ci-robot requested review from lilic and tariq1890 January 31, 2020 18:31

lilic reviewed Feb 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

pkg/options/options.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch from 75b3eea to e803725 Compare February 3, 2020 20:11

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 13, 2020

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch from e803725 to eed98f5 Compare February 18, 2020 16:36

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 18, 2020

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch from eed98f5 to e37390d Compare February 19, 2020 15:30

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 19, 2020

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch 2 times, most recently from 3aaefe6 to e6e5749 Compare February 19, 2020 15:55

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 19, 2020

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch from e6e5749 to 26697b5 Compare February 19, 2020 16:08

olivierlemasle reviewed Feb 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

olivierlemasle suggested changes Feb 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch from 4d6c590 to 6a2e62d Compare March 2, 2020 15:56

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Mar 10, 2020

tariq1890 reviewed Mar 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

internal/store/metriclabels.go

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@

package store

Copy link

Contributor

tariq1890 Mar 12, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This needs a license header

tariq1890 reviewed Mar 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

internal/store/metriclabels.go

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@

package store

Copy link

Contributor

tariq1890 Mar 12, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we change the name to default_labels.go?

tariq1890 reviewed Mar 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch from f784dc7 to 2700ea5 Compare October 8, 2020 21:33

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 8, 2020

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch 5 times, most recently from 65f257f to 901150c Compare October 13, 2020 07:33

add annotation metrics.

ad1105a

jw-s force-pushed the annotation-metrics-whitelisting branch from 901150c to ad1105a Compare October 14, 2020 08:24

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 27, 2020

k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jan 25, 2021

antoniivanov mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2021

Add container termination message metric #1394

Closed

k8s-ci-robot added lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. labels Mar 7, 2021

k8s-ci-robot closed this Apr 6, 2021

sepich mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2021

Add annotation metrics #1495

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

add annotation metrics and ability to exclude. #1041

add annotation metrics and ability to exclude. #1041

jw-s commented Jan 31, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 31, 2020

lilic left a comment

olivierlemasle Feb 19, 2020

jw-s Feb 20, 2020

olivierlemasle Feb 19, 2020

olivierlemasle left a comment •

edited

Loading

jw-s commented Feb 20, 2020

lilic commented Feb 27, 2020

jw-s commented Mar 2, 2020

jw-s commented Mar 2, 2020

lilic commented Mar 10, 2020

tariq1890 Mar 12, 2020

tariq1890 Mar 12, 2020

tariq1890 Mar 12, 2020

tariq1890 Mar 12, 2020

lilic Mar 12, 2020

tariq1890 commented Mar 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

lilic commented Oct 7, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 8, 2020

lilic commented Oct 13, 2020

jw-s commented Oct 13, 2020

jw-s commented Oct 27, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2020

lilic commented Oct 27, 2020

lilic commented Oct 27, 2020

jw-s commented Oct 27, 2020

fejta-bot commented Jan 25, 2021

Mepemotrarial commented Feb 5, 2021

fejta-bot commented Mar 7, 2021

fejta-bot commented Apr 6, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 6, 2021

add annotation metrics and ability to exclude. #1041

add annotation metrics and ability to exclude. #1041

Conversation

jw-s commented Jan 31, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 31, 2020

lilic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

olivierlemasle left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jw-s commented Feb 20, 2020

lilic commented Feb 27, 2020

jw-s commented Mar 2, 2020

jw-s commented Mar 2, 2020

lilic commented Mar 10, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tariq1890 commented Mar 12, 2020 • edited Loading

lilic commented Oct 7, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 8, 2020

lilic commented Oct 13, 2020

jw-s commented Oct 13, 2020

jw-s commented Oct 27, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2020

lilic commented Oct 27, 2020

lilic commented Oct 27, 2020

jw-s commented Oct 27, 2020

fejta-bot commented Jan 25, 2021

Mepemotrarial commented Feb 5, 2021

fejta-bot commented Mar 7, 2021

fejta-bot commented Apr 6, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 6, 2021

olivierlemasle left a comment •

edited

Loading

tariq1890 commented Mar 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading