KKcorps commented on code in PR #12073: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/12073#discussion_r1410453242
########## docker/images/pinot/etc/jmx_prometheus_javaagent/configs/broker.yml: ########## @@ -157,15 +157,24 @@ rules: ## Metrics that fit the catch-all patterns above should not be added to this file. ## In case a metric does not fit the catch-all patterns, add them before this comment - - # This is a catch-all pattern for pinot table metrics with offline/realtime suffix. + # This is a catch-all pattern for pinot table metrics with offline/realtime suffix without kafka topic # Patterns after this line may be skipped. -- pattern: "\"?org\\.apache\\.pinot\\.common\\.metrics\"?<type=\"?\\w+\"?, name=\"?pinot\\.(\\w+)\\.(\\w+)_(OFFLINE|REALTIME)\\.(\\w+)\"?><>(\\w+)" - name: "pinot_$1_$4_$5" +- pattern: "\"?org\\.apache\\.pinot\\.common\\.metrics\"?<type=\"?\\w+\"?, name=\"?pinot\\.(\\w+)\\.(\\w+)\\.(\\w+)_(OFFLINE|REALTIME)\\.(\\w+)\"?><>(\\w+)" Review Comment: Should we change the existing catch all? I feel like the old one might be capturing something which may get lost with this new It's better imo to include this one as a seperate ########## docker/images/pinot/etc/jmx_prometheus_javaagent/configs/broker.yml: ########## @@ -157,15 +157,24 @@ rules: ## Metrics that fit the catch-all patterns above should not be added to this file. ## In case a metric does not fit the catch-all patterns, add them before this comment - - # This is a catch-all pattern for pinot table metrics with offline/realtime suffix. + # This is a catch-all pattern for pinot table metrics with offline/realtime suffix without kafka topic # Patterns after this line may be skipped. -- pattern: "\"?org\\.apache\\.pinot\\.common\\.metrics\"?<type=\"?\\w+\"?, name=\"?pinot\\.(\\w+)\\.(\\w+)_(OFFLINE|REALTIME)\\.(\\w+)\"?><>(\\w+)" - name: "pinot_$1_$4_$5" +- pattern: "\"?org\\.apache\\.pinot\\.common\\.metrics\"?<type=\"?\\w+\"?, name=\"?pinot\\.(\\w+)\\.(\\w+)\\.(\\w+)_(OFFLINE|REALTIME)\\.(\\w+)\"?><>(\\w+)" Review Comment: Should we change the existing catch all? I feel like the old one might be capturing something which may get lost with this new It's better imo to include this one as a seperate rule -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
