chore(route-monitor-operator): add console monitor [OSD-5499]

[georgettica]

I have 2 questions for this PR:

• who should be the owners
• what should the .spec.targetAvailabilityPercent be?

[RiRa12621]

/assign @jeremyeder

[RiRa12621]

It doesn't need a separate owner.
You can't merge without the gods' approval to prod anyway
Availability seems fine, needs revisit after a while to see if we can raise it

[RiRa12621]

/lgtm

[georgettica]

/hold
I need to add a SOP for it

[cblecker]

It doesn't need a separate owner.

There should be an owners file with a reviewers section detailing who should be point of contact for reviews. You can look at the other folders under deploy/ for examples

what should the .spec.targetAvailabilityPercent be?

Do we have a process for selecting these? Will alerts be raised based off this, or just a metric?

cc @dofinn

[RiRa12621]

Who needs that if it can't go in without "approved" anyway?

Yes alerts is what route monitor operator does

[cblecker]

Who needs that if it can't go in without "approved" anyway?

Because change to MCC should be reviewed by subject matter experts in addition to leads.

[RiRa12621]

So you need me to tell you it's ok, so you can approve? Not very efficient imho
Let SMEs approve if they're (rightfully) supposed to evaluate and review changes.
Then the owners file makes more sense too

[dofinn]

We have nothing in stone that helps us define initial values for SLOs.
Lets make sure we have some dedicated actions to follow this up to analyze if we can increase this SLO based on current data.

[NautiluX]

/hold need to rework alerts in RMO, they are currently based on http_requests_total metrics

[georgettica]

/unhold
changes that @NautiluX requested are in and SOP is also in

@RiRa12621 can you give a final /lgtm?
not sure if @dofinn has additional notes on this PR aside of what was raised

[RiRa12621]

/lgtm

[georgettica]

as @NautiluX suggeste, changed NS and need a lgtm becuase of it

[georgettica]

tested on stage (I can replace my routemonitor with this one, but outcome should be similar)

[georgettica]

changing to the current CR still works and is scraped, only future concern is the message naming, which should be solved in the RMO code itself

(the value of the breach is 1 and not a good indication to how long the alert is firing)

[NautiluX]

Why now 99.95? According to the SLO doc it should be 99.5? Probably I miss some discussion here...

[NautiluX]

turns out this was confused with the API server SLA. We'll change it back to 99.5.

[wgordon17]

Will this automatically merge once #771 is resolved?

[georgettica]

@wgordon17 If I get a +1 for this then yes

[wgordon17]

@georgettica Consider this a ➕ 1 from PM if it helps :) Not sure if you need plus one's from others ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[cblecker]

@georgettica LGTM, but as previously commented, needs an OWNERS file that looks something like:

reviewers:
- georgettica
- RiRa12621

[cblecker]

/lgtm
/approve

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cblecker, georgettica, RiRa12621

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 [cblecker]

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