Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 31, 2023. It is now read-only.

Implement server and client completed_rpcs (#1214) #1216

Conversation

smhendrickson
Copy link
Contributor

The previous implementation appears to be a copy-paste error that directed data into
the latency metric, but never recorded data preserving the latency measure
accuracy. This cl implements the completed_rpcs measure by
incrementing by 1 for each handleRPCEnd call.

The measure is broken down by method and status.

…1214)

The previous impl appears to be a copy/paste error that directed data into
the latency metric, but never actually recorded data preserving measure
accuracy. This cl implements the `completed_rpcs` measure by
incrementing by 1 for each `handleRPCEnd` call.

The measure is broken down by method and status.
@smhendrickson smhendrickson requested review from rakyll, rghetia and a team as code owners June 29, 2020 19:42
Copy link
Collaborator

@james-bebbington james-bebbington left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor

@rghetia rghetia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It was working as intended. When you use 'Count' aggregation on latency you basically get the number of rpcs completed. Count aggregation increases value by 1 for every latency measured.
Doing one less Record call is better than two. (probably not much saving)

@smhendrickson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rghetia agreed. I've just checked my metrics and can confirm completed_rpcs is exported with the intended breakdowns. Not sure why I missed it and went digging before.

With that in mind I can either reduce this pr to an informative comment, or keep it as is. I find the PR more straightforward but it really depends how efficient you want the plugin to be. Up to you all.

RE: CLA not sure why this isn't working. My @google email should get his to pass. Will keeping looking.

@rghetia
Copy link
Contributor

rghetia commented Jun 30, 2020

With that in mind I can either reduce this pr to an informative comment, or keep it as is. I find the PR more straightforward but it really depends how efficient you want the plugin to be. Up to you all.

I would go with an informative comment.

smhendrickson added a commit to smhendrickson/opencensus-go that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2020
This reuse previously threw us for a loop. We mistakenly thought it was
a copy/paste error.
census-instrumentation#1214
census-instrumentation#1216
@smhendrickson
Copy link
Contributor Author

#1217 created for the comment.

Unsure if it is correct form to create a new PR for something like that, but thats what happens when I don't use github (or git) for years 🤷‍♂️

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants