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.

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

[receiver/databricksreceiver] add skeleton and initial README #20891

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

pmcollins
Copy link
Member

Description: Adds DataBricks receiver skeleton.

Link to tracking Issue: #18724

Testing: Unit tests added.

Documentation: Initial README added.

@pmcollins pmcollins marked this pull request as ready for review April 13, 2023 19:00
@pmcollins pmcollins requested review from a team and TylerHelmuth April 13, 2023 19:00
receiver/databricksreceiver/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
receiver/databricksreceiver/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
receiver/databricksreceiver/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
receiver/databricksreceiver/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@atoulme atoulme added the Accepted Component New component has been sponsored label Apr 13, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the cmd/mdatagen mdatagen command label Apr 14, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@atoulme atoulme left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, please rebase and run make gendependabot to fix the dependabot conflict.

receiver/databricksreceiver/metadata.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
receiver/databricksreceiver/metadata.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
[cluster.id, spark.app.id, pipeline.id, pipeline.name]
databricks.spark.block_manager.memory.off_heap.max:
enabled: true
description: n/a
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will we keep it n/a going forward?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unfortunately, not even Spark documents these metrics. It would be nice to have a description here but I'm not sure where to get this information.

receiver/databricksreceiver/metadata.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
unit: "{jobs}"
gauge:
value_type: int
databricks.jobs.schedule.status:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this metric just an aggregation of databricks.tasks.schedule.status? If that's the case, I have a couple of Qs:

  1. Do we need to expose them both? If so, we should make one of them optional, otherwise, we expose duplicated data (just in different forms). Any backend (or collector) can do the aggregation.
  2. If the aggregation method is sum, they should be sums, not gauges.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The status comes from the job, and a job has multiple tasks, so the job status is simply propagated to each of its tasks. I suppose the task status metric could be made optional or removed altogether. What do you think?

Copy link
Contributor

@hughesjj hughesjj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lookin good, only blocker from me would maybe be deciding on enabling all metrics by default since that's customer facing.

MetricsBuilderConfig comment is additive and can be decided later if we want it at all.

receiver/databricksreceiver/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
receiver/databricksreceiver/metadata.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@pmcollins pmcollins closed this May 18, 2023
@MovieStoreGuy
Copy link
Contributor

I'm reopening this back up to since the work looks near done for a skeleton, and it is my understanding that the work is done in the Splunk Distribution?

cc: @dmitryax , @atoulme

@MovieStoreGuy MovieStoreGuy reopened this Dec 5, 2023
@open-telemetry open-telemetry deleted a comment from runforesight bot Dec 5, 2023
@atoulme
Copy link
Contributor

atoulme commented Dec 5, 2023

Sure, we need a rebase and we can get this in. The receiver needs more codeowners and probably someone from Databricks to help out if anyone is interested.

Copy link
Contributor

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Dec 20, 2023
@atoulme atoulme removed the Stale label Dec 23, 2023
@atoulme
Copy link
Contributor

atoulme commented Dec 23, 2023

@MovieStoreGuy rebased, ready to go in

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 7, 2024

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Jan 7, 2024
@mx-psi mx-psi removed the Stale label Jan 9, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Jan 24, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 8, 2024

Closed as inactive. Feel free to reopen if this PR is still being worked on.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Feb 8, 2024
@cartersocha
Copy link

Any updates here? @atoulme

@atoulme
Copy link
Contributor

atoulme commented Feb 23, 2024

Not much - we still want to do it, just no time. Interested?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Accepted Component New component has been sponsored cmd/mdatagen mdatagen command Stale
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants