NETOBSERV-1610: document cardinality warning per field

[jotak]

Description

• Add cardinalityWarn property to frontend fields config
• Add test checking all fields are correctly flagged
• Add column to generated doc of flows format

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.

• 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).

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jotak: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1610 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 story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

• Add cardinalityWarn property to frontend fields config
• Add test checking all fields are correctly flagged
• Add column to generated doc of flows format

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.

• 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).

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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jotak: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1610 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 story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

• Add cardinalityWarn property to frontend fields config
• Add test checking all fields are correctly flagged
• Add column to generated doc of flows format

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.

• 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).

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.

[jotak]

@OlivierCazade I guess this could also be leveraged in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/NETOBSERV-1447 ?
Does my list of high cardinality fields matches what you had?

@skrthomas : in openshift/openshift-docs#74412 : I guess in "Configuring custom metrics" we should explain to refer to this fields list to check what is fine to use (mentioned as "fine" in fields list), or to use with care (mentioned as "careful"), or that cannot be used (mentioned as "avoid") - those mentions will now appear in the Flows format doc. I've updated my other PR with more info on cardinality: fe3a9e6

[jotak]

cc @skrthomas for reviewing this part

[skrthomas]

@jotak Linking to the flows format and mentioning the cardinality in the text sounds good. Thanks for looping me in here so I can see this update now.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.42%. Comparing base (b26356d) to head (84a2ea8).

❗ Current head 84a2ea8 differs from pull request most recent head 093a0f6. Consider uploading reports for the commit 093a0f6 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #623   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.42%   66.42%           
=======================================
  Files          65       65           
  Lines        7357     7357           
=======================================
  Hits         4887     4887           
  Misses       2114     2114           
  Partials      356      356           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	66.42% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jpinsonneau]

Looks good, thanks @jotak

[openshift-ci]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[jotak]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jotak

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:

• OWNERS [jotak]

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

[memodi]

@OlivierCazade where should these warnings appear? I created flowmetric resource with DstAddr label but did not see any warning when creating the resource.