Register storage_account as second name for storage metricset #28447
Register storage_account as second name for storage metricset #28447narph merged 5 commits intoelastic:masterfrom
storage_account as second name for storage metricset #28447Conversation
|
This pull request does not have a backport label. Could you fix it @narph? 🙏
NOTE: |
💚 Build Succeeded
Expand to view the summary
Build stats
Test stats 🧪
💚 Flaky test reportTests succeeded. 🤖 GitHub commentsTo re-run your PR in the CI, just comment with:
|
|
Pinging @elastic/integrations (Team:Integrations) |
|
This pull request doesn't have a |
| - Move openmetrics module to oss. {pull}26561[26561] | ||
| - Add `gke` metricset collection to `gcp` module {pull}26824[26824] | ||
| - Added a new beta `enterprisesearch` module for Elastic Enterprise Search {pull}27549[27549] | ||
| - Register additional name for `storage` metricset in the azure module. {pull}28447[28447] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to document this or show some deprecation warning in the old name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no deprecation, I don't plan to change the name, just want to remove the pipeline in the future
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So are both metricsets going to stay forever in beats?
| - Move openmetrics module to oss. {pull}26561[26561] | ||
| - Add `gke` metricset collection to `gcp` module {pull}26824[26824] | ||
| - Added a new beta `enterprisesearch` module for Elastic Enterprise Search {pull}27549[27549] | ||
| - Register additional name for `storage` metricset in the azure module. {pull}28447[28447] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So are both metricsets going to stay forever in beats?
Are they considered as 2 metricsets? I assumed it will just be one metricset with 2 registered names. I do not have any close future plans to replace the name and I was thinking that adding the deprecation message in the logs might push some users to move to the new naming but dashboards and docs do not support that. |
This is an almost metaphysical question 😄
If both names are going to stay by now I don't see any problem. Only that if we plan to remove the old registered name at some point we should warn users. If we don't plan to remove it, all good. |
* upstream/7.x: chore: use same branching schema for e2e (#28493) [Automation] Update elastic stack version to 7.16.0-8bf0b9b1 for testing (#28484) chore(ci): remove not used param when triggering e2e tests (#27823) (#27828) Add deprecation warning for filebeat disabled modules (#28393) Run Python tests in libbeat (#28438) (#28485) Register `storage_account` as second name for `storage` metricset (#28447) (#28470) [CI] Add E2E for x-pack/elastic-agent (fleet) (#24112) (#28465)
…astic#28447) * add storage * changelog * add fields
What does this PR do?
Register
storage_accountas second name forstoragemetricsetConclusion for #28284
Why is it important?
Register
storage_accountas second name forstoragemetricsetConclusion for #28284
Checklist
CHANGELOG.next.asciidocorCHANGELOG-developer.next.asciidoc.Related issues
Ex. record: