[ASCII-145] Extract collector to a subpackage of status #20718
Conversation
GustavoCaso
force-pushed
the
extract-collector-to-a-subpackage-of-status
branch
from
08e3459 to
ed769f2
Compare
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: 6359a37
|
GustavoCaso
force-pushed
the
extract-collector-to-a-subpackage-of-status
branch
3 times, most recently
from
90c8916 to
4f10dde
Compare
GustavoCaso
force-pushed
the
extract-collector-to-a-subpackage-of-status
branch
from
4f10dde to
ae7fddb
Compare
Bloop Bleep... Dogbot HereRegression Detector ResultsRun ID: 3bd0a482-6ac7-4467-9f55-f4f48b4b614c ExplanationA regression test is an integrated performance test for Because a target's optimization goal performance in each experiment will vary somewhat each time it is run, we can only estimate mean differences in optimization goal relative to the baseline target. We express these differences as a percentage change relative to the baseline target, denoted "Δ mean %". These estimates are made to a precision that balances accuracy and cost control. We represent this precision as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI": there is a 90.00% chance that the true value of "Δ mean %" is in that interval. We decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if both of the following two criteria are true:
The table below, if present, lists those experiments that have experienced a statistically significant change in mean optimization goal performance between baseline and comparison SHAs with 90.00% confidence OR have been detected as newly erratic. Negative values of "Δ mean %" mean that baseline is faster, whereas positive values of "Δ mean %" mean that comparison is faster. Results that do not exhibit more than a ±5.00% change in their mean optimization goal are discarded. An experiment is erratic if its coefficient of variation is greater than 0.1. The abbreviated table will be omitted if no interesting change is observed. No interesting changes in experiment optimization goals with confidence ≥ 90.00% and |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%. Fine details of change detection per experiment.
|
pkg/status/status.go
Outdated
| checkSchedulerStats := make(map[string]interface{}) | ||
| json.Unmarshal(checkSchedulerStatsJSON, &checkSchedulerStats) //nolint:errcheck | ||
| stats["checkSchedulerStats"] = checkSchedulerStats | ||
| collector.UpdateStatus(stats) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find the name of this method a bit confusing. The other method is GetStatus, which is clearly a reader that returns data. Since UpdateStatus is ambiguous, at first read I keep thinking that this is taking an argument and writing it somewhere, rather than modifying its argument. One thought would be to change this to InsertStatus or PopulateStatus, but I'm open to other names that clarify how this method is adding more key-values into the map that gets passed to it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like PopulateStatus
| func GetStatus() map[string]interface{} { | ||
| stats := make(map[string]interface{}) | ||
|
|
||
| runnerStatsJSON := []byte(expvar.Get("runner").String()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For each of these vars, runner, autoconfig, CheckScheduler, pyLoader, and pythonInit, how about extracting out a helper function that handles the json unmarshaling. So instead these variables can be handled like this:
stats["runnerStats"] = unmarshalStatsVar("runner") // returns nil if var doesn't exist, or can't unmarshal
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that we could extract the functionality of collecting the expvar. I would suggest delaying it until we have extracted all status sub packages, as we might find better helper functions or even sub packages to deal with expvars parsing.
GustavoCaso
force-pushed
the
extract-collector-to-a-subpackage-of-status
branch
from
176f2de to
d8c61b3
Compare
GustavoCaso
changed the title
What does this PR do?
Motivation
Trying to decompose the status package into sub-packages.
This PR extracts fetching the collector information into a separate sub-package
status/collectorThat sub-package allows consumers of the status package who only care about collector information to use
status/collectorrather than the entire status package.Also, I removed the indirection for rendering the collector information. I think the main reason for that indirection is that the agent cluster process does not want to show the collector information for certain keys. I simply
nildoes keys:I made sure that the keys match the status map and templates.
I also removed the
OnlyCheckkey as it is not mentioned on any template.I'm planning to continue working on splitting the status package in other PRs. I want to focus on small PRs easier to review rather than creating a big PR 😄
Additional Notes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Describe how to test/QA your changes
agent statusshould produce the correct output.agent launch-guiand validate that validate the collector tab shows the correct informationReviewer's Checklist
Triagemilestone is set.major_changelabel if your change either has a major impact on the code base, is impacting multiple teams or is changing important well-established internals of the Agent. This label will be use during QA to make sure each team pay extra attention to the changed behavior. For any customer facing change use a releasenote.changelog/no-changeloglabel has been applied.qa/skip-qalabel is not applied.team/..label has been applied, indicating the team(s) that should QA this change.need-change/operatorandneed-change/helmlabels have been applied.k8s/<min-version>label, indicating the lowest Kubernetes version compatible with this feature.