-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 387
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.
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
Update traceflow graph message for service destinations #1607
Conversation
Thanks for your PR. The following commands are available:
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1607 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 63.31% 61.85% -1.47%
==========================================
Files 170 181 +11
Lines 14250 16656 +2406
==========================================
+ Hits 9023 10302 +1279
- Misses 4292 5309 +1017
- Partials 935 1045 +110
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
@@ -177,8 +177,14 @@ func getTraceflowMessage(o *opsv1alpha1.Observation) string { | |||
if o.Component == opsv1alpha1.NetworkPolicy && len(o.NetworkPolicy) > 0 { | |||
str += "\nNetpol: " + o.NetworkPolicy | |||
} | |||
if len(o.Pod) > 0 { | |||
str += "\nTo: " + o.Pod |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After taking a look at the example graph, I would suggest to use "To Pod" here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for making the enhancement. From my point, a general suggestion would be adding a little bit details for each field shown on the graph to avoid any confusion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the improvement. However the destination is a little confusing to me as the service name, not sure if others have the same feeling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you think we should show the Pod name in the destination box (either just Pod name, or both Service and Pod names)?
Just saw @tnqn's reply after adding the same comment. |
Maybe we can replace service name with pod name, and show service name below:
|
Have updated the IP-related names as well as the example graph. |
str += "\nTo: " + o.Pod | ||
} | ||
if o.Action != opsv1alpha1.Dropped && len(o.TranslatedDstIP) > 0 { | ||
str += "\nTranslated Destination IP: " + o.TranslatedDstIP |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not sure the exact meaning of TranslatedDstIP here, maybe @gran-vmv can give some details for this field, so that we can enhance UI description for this.
Will it always be Pod IP? Or in the case where destination is service, it will be service IP instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
AFAIK, TranslatedDstIP is only set for service access and it's the destination pod ip.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it, thanks Quan.
@gran-vmv Would you review this patch or not? |
@ZhangYW18 have you applied this change? I didn't see it from the example and the code. |
No, I didn't. I'm still waiting for more suggestions. |
maybe you can go ahead with the approach of including both service and pod information. |
Have updated the destination name in service case. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The new design looks good to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks
/test-all |
/skip-all since this touches octant plugin code only. |
@mengdie-song before merging it, do you have other comments since you reviewed this as well? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Add destination pod name & IP in load balancing stage when destination is a service.
Example graph:
![tfgraph](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32829088/101740842-4fd1f580-3b04-11eb-8582-2b5458d0be56.png)