fix: timestampNanos nanos precision. #2003

rafal-dudek · 2023-07-06T07:54:08Z

Fix #1996
I hope that testTimestampNanos() is enough. I am testing 2 logs to lower false negative possibility (when all micros and nanos are 0) to 1:1e+12

google-cla · 2023-07-06T07:54:12Z

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

rafal-dudek · 2023-07-06T08:44:53Z

Working on CLA

...g-cloud-gcp-logging/src/main/java/com/google/cloud/spring/logging/StackdriverJsonLayout.java

...-logging/src/test/java/com/google/cloud/spring/logging/StackdriverJsonLayoutLoggerTests.java

meltsufin · 2023-07-06T14:31:59Z

...-logging/src/test/java/com/google/cloud/spring/logging/StackdriverJsonLayoutLoggerTests.java

+                    .map(data -> (Double) data.get(StackdriverTraceConstants.TIMESTAMP_NANOS_ATTRIBUTE))
+                    .collect(Collectors.toList());
+
+    assertThat(logTimestampNanos).anySatisfy(nanos -> assertThat(nanos % 1000000).isGreaterThan(0));


Can't nanos be 0 though?

Yes, I wanted to create test to ensure that there is nano precision and not just mili.
I am testing 2 logs with any greater than 0 to lower false negative possibility (when all micros and nanos are 0) to 1:1e+12.

Not sure if you like it this way or maybe just simple 1 log with nanos greaterOrEqual(0).

I think the way you have it is fine. As you point out, the likelihood of flakiness due to this is tiny. You might just want to make sure you are getting 2 timestamps in the array. You can even make the number of logs a variable.