Hi William, For me we it's not a problem to backport until 2.4. Even if it's a breaking change for haproxy_backend_agg_server_check_status, it's clearer and make more sense if it's aggregate server_check_status and not server_status.
Cedric. -----Message d'origine----- De : William Dauchy <wdau...@gmail.com> Envoyé : mardi 29 novembre 2022 12:39 À : Cedric Paillet <c.pail...@criteo.com> Cc : haproxy@formilux.org; Christopher Faulet <cfau...@haproxy.com> Objet : Re: [PATCH 0/2] BUG/MINOR: promex: fix haproxy_backend_agg_server_check_status On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 11:52 AM William Dauchy <wdau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 8:46 AM Cedric Paillet <c.pail...@criteo.com> wrote: > > As described in github issue #1312, the first intention of patch > > 42d7c402d was to aggregate haproxy_server_check_status. But we > > aggregated haproxy_server_status instead. > > To fix that, rename haproxy_backend_agg_server_check_status to > > haproxy_backend_agg_server_status and use right data source for > > haproxy_backend_agg_server_check_status. > > Thank you for looking into this. This has been on my todo list for too long. > I am fine with those changes as long as we backport them until the > version where this was introduced (this was introduced in v2.5 and > then backported in v2.4 if my checks are correct). > I understand that's a breaking change, some people started to build > tooling on top of that can't deal with behaviour change between > versions (I am thinking about dashboards in my case where we deal with > different versions). In that regard, I believe it can be ok to have to > do a one off change to fix this past mistake. If we are not aligned > with a backport, we will need to find another name. I realised I was not necessarily very clear on my position: - either we merge this patch, and then backport it until 2.4 - either we find a new name for the new metric and don't introduce a breaking change I am mostly worried about metrics collectors who are not able to deal with different behaviour from one version to another. In my own case, we have different haproxy versions running, and there is no global way we can adapt the collector depending on the software version it is collecting. The collector expects the same behaviour across versions. Having a breaking change which affects all versions is fine as it will require a unique change on our side, but having a situation in the middle is not acceptable for us. -- William
