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

Support multi-tenancy in TempoMonolithic CR #816

Merged

Conversation

andreasgerstmayr
Copy link
Collaborator

@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr commented Feb 21, 2024

Support multi-tenancy in TempoMonolithic CR.

@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr changed the title Support multitenancy in TempoMonolithic CR (3/3) Support multi-tenancy in TempoMonolithic CR (3/3) Feb 22, 2024
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Feb 22, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 84.19689% with 61 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 75.25%. Comparing base (03d8e5f) to head (503200c).

Files Patch % Lines
internal/manifests/monolithic/build.go 0.00% 12 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
internal/manifests/manifestutils/tls.go 0.00% 9 Missing ⚠️
internal/manifests/monolithic/configmap.go 25.00% 7 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
internal/manifests/monolithic/statefulset.go 94.91% 6 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
controllers/tempo/tempomonolithic_controller.go 53.33% 6 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
internal/manifests/monolithic/gateway.go 86.95% 4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
internal/manifests/naming/naming.go 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
internal/manifests/monolithic/serviceaccount.go 62.50% 2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #816      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   74.26%   75.25%   +0.99%     
==========================================
  Files          89       90       +1     
  Lines        6587     6932     +345     
==========================================
+ Hits         4892     5217     +325     
- Misses       1453     1463      +10     
- Partials      242      252      +10     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 75.25% <84.19%> (+0.99%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr force-pushed the monolithic-multitenancy branch 3 times, most recently from 788050c to cc26d4f Compare February 22, 2024 15:55
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr marked this pull request as ready for review February 22, 2024 15:57
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr marked this pull request as draft February 27, 2024 13:42
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr force-pushed the monolithic-multitenancy branch 7 times, most recently from 289fb57 to da40700 Compare February 28, 2024 18:02
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr changed the title Support multi-tenancy in TempoMonolithic CR (3/3) Support multi-tenancy in TempoMonolithic CR (depends on #814 and #815) Mar 11, 2024
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr changed the title Support multi-tenancy in TempoMonolithic CR (depends on #814 and #815) Support multi-tenancy in TempoMonolithic CR Mar 12, 2024
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr force-pushed the monolithic-multitenancy branch 3 times, most recently from 1fdddba to 1767cad Compare March 13, 2024 17:27
Signed-off-by: Andreas Gerstmayr <agerstmayr@redhat.com>
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr force-pushed the monolithic-multitenancy branch from 1767cad to 7b67fa9 Compare March 13, 2024 17:33
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr marked this pull request as ready for review March 13, 2024 17:34
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr force-pushed the monolithic-multitenancy branch from d2fc200 to e0dcbe6 Compare March 14, 2024 12:25
Signed-off-by: Andreas Gerstmayr <agerstmayr@redhat.com>
@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr force-pushed the monolithic-multitenancy branch from e0dcbe6 to 590ca4e Compare March 14, 2024 14:04
Signed-off-by: Andreas Gerstmayr <agerstmayr@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Gerstmayr <agerstmayr@redhat.com>
// The internal server is required because if the gateway is enabled,
// the Tempo API will listen on localhost only,
// and then Kubernetes cannot reach the health check endpoint.
config.InternalServer.Enable = true
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wondering if we cannot have the internal server always enabled? :D

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I think we should always enable it in the TempoStack as well.
It is always enabled in TempoMonolithic.

Copy link
Collaborator

@rubenvp8510 rubenvp8510 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Small comment, no blocker LGTM!

@andreasgerstmayr andreasgerstmayr merged commit eed0197 into grafana:main Mar 15, 2024
11 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants