Skip to content

NETOBSERV-2437: Active since field added to alert details #1129

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
leandroberetta merged 4 commits into from
Dec 1, 2025
Merged

NETOBSERV-2437: Active since field added to alert details #1129

leandroberetta merged 4 commits into from
Dec 1, 2025

Conversation

@leandroberetta
Copy link
Contributor

@leandroberetta leandroberetta commented Nov 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Description

Active since field added to alert details.

How to test

Enable the experimental mode:

  kubectl patch flowcollector cluster --type=merge -p '
  spec:
    processor:
      advanced:
        env:
          EXPERIMENTAL_ALERTS_HEALTH: "true"
  '

Then enable, for example DNSTracking:

  kubectl patch flowcollector cluster --type=merge -p '
  spec:
    agent:
      ebpf:
        features:
        - DNSTracking
  '

Finally, create a pod that generates dns errors:

  kubectl apply -f - <<'EOF'
  apiVersion: v1
  kind: Pod
  metadata:
    name: dns-error-generator
    namespace: default
  spec:
    containers:
    - name: dns-query
      image: alpine:latest
      command:
      - /bin/sh
      - -c
      - |
        apk add --no-cache bind-tools
        echo "Starting DNS error generator..."
        while true; do
          nslookup this-domain-does-not-exist-12345.com
          nslookup fake-nonexistent-domain-67890.net
          nslookup invalid-test-domain-abcdef.org
          nslookup test.invalidtld999
          nslookup aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.com
          echo "---"
          sleep 5
        done
    restartPolicy: Always
  EOF

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
    • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
    • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
    • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
    • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
    • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
    • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

@leandroberetta leandroberetta self-assigned this Nov 26, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 26, 2025 •
edited by openshift-ci bot
Loading

@leandroberetta: This pull request references NETOBSERV-2437 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Active since field added to alert details

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 26, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign mariomac for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

jotak
jotak reviewed Nov 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
web/src/utils/datetime.ts Outdated
* - Last 7 days: Shows day of week and time (Tue, 14:23)
* - Older: Shows full date and time (2025-11-24 14:23)
*/
export const formatActiveSince = (timestamp: string): string => {
Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak Nov 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This one deserves a unit test
I think there's a bug in "yesterday" : activeDate.getDate() === yesterday.getDate()

Copy link
Contributor Author

@leandroberetta leandroberetta Nov 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I added a unit test. It passed.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 27, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 47.36%. Comparing base (c02bcea) to head (115e619).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (c02bcea) and HEAD (115e619). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE
Flag BASE (c02bcea) HEAD (115e619)
uitests 1 0
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1129      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   53.60%   47.36%   -6.24%     
==========================================
  Files         205       40     -165     
  Lines       10513     2825    -7688     
  Branches     1301        0    -1301     
==========================================
- Hits         5635     1338    -4297     
+ Misses       4362     1318    -3044     
+ Partials      516      169     -347
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests ?
unittests 47.36% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 165 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@leandroberetta leandroberetta requested a review from jotak December 1, 2025 12:23
jotak
jotak approved these changes Dec 1, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jotak jotak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks, LGTM!

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Dec 1, 2025
@leandroberetta leandroberetta merged commit 569219d into netobserv:main Dec 1, 2025
8 of 10 checks passed
oliver-smakal
oliver-smakal reviewed Dec 4, 2025
View reviewed changes
web/src/utils/datetime.ts
Comment on lines +128 to +133
* Formats a timestamp for "Active since" display with relative or absolute time.
* - Today: Shows only time (14:23)
* - Yesterday: Shows "Yesterday, HH:MM"
* - Last 7 days: Shows day of week and time (Tue, 14:23)
* - Older: Shows full date and time (2025-11-24 14:23)
*/
Copy link
Contributor

@oliver-smakal oliver-smakal Dec 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I quite like the way you format it, but it is inconsistent with the way it is displayed elsewhere.

How it is displayed elsewhere:
image

I would expect that there would be some kind of common helper for this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@leandroberetta leandroberetta Dec 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see, you have a point, consistency

@jotak @jpinsonneau is there any helper to format the time between plugins?.

For the sake of consistency I can adapt the date to that format, wdyt?.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@oliver-smakal oliver-smakal oliver-smakal left review comments

@jotak jotak jotak approved these changes

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau Awaiting requested review from jpinsonneau

Assignees

@leandroberetta leandroberetta

@jotak jotak

Labels

jira/valid-reference lgtm

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@leandroberetta @openshift-ci-robot @jotak @oliver-smakal