fix: change .inc calls to .increment #8000
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
1 Skipped Deployment
|
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.OpenSSF Scorecard
Scanned Manifest Files |
kwasniew
approved these changes
Aug 28, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We are observing incorrect data in Prometheus, which is consistently non-reproducible. After a restart, the issue does not occur, but if the pods run for an extended period, they seem to enter a strange state where the counters become entangled and start sharing arbitrary values that are added to the counters.
For example, the
feature_lifecycle_stage_enteredcounter gets an arbitrary value, such as 12, added wheninc()is called. TheexceedsLimitErrorCountershows the same behavior, and the code implementation is identical.We also tested some existing
increase()counters, and they do not suffer from this issue.All calls to
counter.labels(labels).inc() will be replaced bycounter.increment()to try to mitigate the issue.