Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

feat: backup SLOs #155

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 17, 2023
Merged

feat: backup SLOs #155

merged 5 commits into from
Aug 17, 2023

Conversation

lewhit
Copy link
Contributor

@lewhit lewhit commented Aug 8, 2023

What

Add SLOs as a resource to backup in code.

Why

We're starting to rely on Datadog's implementation of Service Level Objectives pretty heavily. We also use the backups we take of our monitors and dashboards to determine whether custom metrics are being used (or not). We'd like to be able to find out if metrics/tags are also being used in any SLOs.

Docs

#154

@lewhit lewhit changed the title Backup SLOs feat: backup SLOs Aug 8, 2023
@lewhit
feat: backup SLOs (#1)
b75faed 
* Add specs for slos

* Add SLOs resource
jim80net
jim80net suggested changes Aug 10, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@jim80net jim80net left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you so much for your contribution, @lewhit!

I look forward to merging this in. Would you please note the suggestions?

Thanks again =)

spec/datadog_backup/slos_spec.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
spec/datadog_backup/slos_spec.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
spec/datadog_backup/slos_spec.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jim80net
Copy link
Contributor

It occurs to me that it would be more consistent with the other resource types if what was stored on disk was in the same schema as necessary for updating the resource. Therefore, I think it could make sense to dig one level deeper and capture the elements inside the data key. What do you think about this approach, @lewhit?

@lewhit
Copy link
Contributor Author

lewhit commented Aug 11, 2023

It occurs to me that it would be more consistent with the other resource types if what was stored on disk was in the same schema as necessary for updating the resource. Therefore, I think it could make sense to dig one level deeper and capture the elements inside the data key. What do you think about this approach, @lewhit?

That makes sense to me

@jim80net jim80net self-requested a review August 17, 2023 05:13
@jim80net jim80net merged commit 6cca6e7 into scribd:main Aug 17, 2023
8 checks passed
@jim80net jim80net mentioned this pull request Aug 17, 2023
Closed
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2023
@semantic-release-bot
chore(release): 3.3.0 [skip ci]
86f3f64 
# [3.3.0](v3.2.1...v3.3.0) (2023-08-17)

### Features

* backup SLOs ([#155](#155)) ([6cca6e7](6cca6e7)), closes [#1](#1)
@github-actions
Copy link

🎉 This PR is included in version 3.3.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jim80net jim80net jim80net approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
released
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@lewhit @jim80net