Skip to content

Update temporal check to temporal v1.28.0#20627

Open
phuongdnguyen wants to merge 32 commits intoDataDog:masterfrom
phuongdnguyen:update-temporal-check
Open

Update temporal check to temporal v1.28.0#20627
phuongdnguyen wants to merge 32 commits intoDataDog:masterfrom
phuongdnguyen:update-temporal-check

Conversation

@phuongdnguyen
Copy link
Contributor

@phuongdnguyen phuongdnguyen commented Jul 1, 2025

What does this PR do?

  • Add script to update metrics list.
  • Generate metrics & metadata to support metrics up to temporal v1.28.0

Motivation

Support metrics in newer temporal version as OOTB
Split from #20142
First part: #20469

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

  • Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
  • Add the qa/skip-qa label if the PR doesn't need to be tested during QA.
  • If you need to backport this PR to another branch, you can add the backport/<branch-name> label to the PR and it will automatically open a backport PR once this one is merged

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 1, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.00%. Comparing base (6a2daeb) to head (f132d85).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@phuongdnguyen phuongdnguyen marked this pull request as draft July 1, 2025 12:27
@phuongdnguyen phuongdnguyen marked this pull request as ready for review July 2, 2025 05:37
@phuongdnguyen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @iliakur , appreciate your review 🙇‍♂️

aggregator.assert_metric_has_tag(metric, tag)

aggregator.assert_metrics_using_metadata(get_metadata_metrics())
aggregator.assert_all_metrics_covered()
Copy link
Contributor Author

@phuongdnguyen phuongdnguyen Jul 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Remove this assertion because we must keep the integration working against several upstream versions - where some metrics appear or disappear between releases and the test already covered a subset of core metrics, wdyt @iliakur ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm -1 to do this in a unit test where we should have full control over the payloads we send.

As I see it we have 2 options:

  1. test each version with a separate test and a dedicated payload
  2. have one big payload "to rule them all" that contains data for all supported versions

I prefer option 2 and can help set that up.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cool @iliakur , please help with the testing setup, thanks thanks 🙇‍♂️

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @iliakur , any ETA for the testing set up ? 🙇

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sorry, next week at this point

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@phuongdnguyen I haven't forgotten, just behind on tasks right now. I'll reach out as soon as I find time.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No prob @iliakur , I'm also can only get back to this after this Thurday also

Copy link
Contributor Author

@phuongdnguyen phuongdnguyen Aug 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @iliakur , I've merged the scripts as you suggested

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @iliakur , can we can get on this ? :)

Copy link
Contributor

@iliakur iliakur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks again for your hard work 💪

aggregator.assert_metric_has_tag(metric, tag)

aggregator.assert_metrics_using_metadata(get_metadata_metrics())
aggregator.assert_all_metrics_covered()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm -1 to do this in a unit test where we should have full control over the payloads we send.

As I see it we have 2 options:

  1. test each version with a separate test and a dedicated payload
  2. have one big payload "to rule them all" that contains data for all supported versions

I prefer option 2 and can help set that up.

Comment on lines 16 to 23
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Strongly in favor of merging the two scripts and having 2 separate commands.

Or should we even just have this be part of the same command? in my understanding the two actions always come together, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@phuongdnguyen phuongdnguyen Jul 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can merge it into 1 script with 2 commands.
There is a case when the 2 operations does not comes together: native dynamic metrics is added in METRICS_MAP manually, then developer want to generate the metadata from it only.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

would it make sense to have just one command that does both actions and then add a flag that disables the first action?

@phuongdnguyen phuongdnguyen requested a review from iliakur August 27, 2025 09:14
@JamieSebastian
Copy link

Hi @iliakur, any chance we can push this through? 🙏 Would love to have metrics from the newer Temporal versions. Thanks!

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

Comments