Skip to content

Conversation

@ClementGalland
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Motivation

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

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2025

⚠️ Recommendation: Add qa/skip-qa label

This PR does not modify any files shipped with the agent.

To help streamline the release process, please consider adding the qa/skip-qa label if these changes do not require QA testing.

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

grok:
matchRules: |
timestamp %{date("yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss.SSSSSS"):timestamp}
timestamp %{date("yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss.SSSSSS"):timestamp

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P1 Badge Fix unbalanced grok timestamp pattern

The matchRules pattern for the timestamp grok-parser is now missing its closing } (timestamp %{date("yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss.SSSSSS"):timestamp), leaving the grok expression syntactically invalid. With this malformed pattern the grok parser cannot compile, so the pipeline will fail to extract timestamp and downstream date remapping will not run for BentoML logs.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@steveny91
Copy link
Contributor

👋 hello! I'm not sure I understand this change?

@ClementGalland ClementGalland added the assets/no-dry-run Run asset publishing github checks in staging label Dec 8, 2025
@ClementGalland ClementGalland marked this pull request as draft December 8, 2025 11:42
@ClementGalland
Copy link
Contributor Author

👋 hello! I'm not sure I understand this change?

Hello, this is used to reproduce a bug in logs-integration-check. This should have been a draft PR, I updated it.

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.

3 participants