Closed wendorf closed 5 years ago
Great suggestion! I'm completely happy to have the Name()
field added to the NodeGroup interface as it's something that should of originally been added to the metrics. I suggest updating CloudProvider. RegisterNodeGroups
to take a slice of some sort of struct containing both the ID + name instead of a slice of strings so we can nicely pass in the node group name.
Let me know what you think.
The
cloud_provider_*
metrics include anid
label that represents the name of the ASG in the cloud provider, and not the name of the node group configured innodegroup.yml
. Other metrics include thenode_group
label that does represent the configured name. This difference makes it difficult to correlate metrics since there's no shared key:value pair.I started making a PR, but it got pretty ugly adding a
Name()
function to cloudprovider.NodeGroup and felt wrong to have the provider abstraction include a field just for tying back to the non-provider nodegroup config. I decided to abort the PR and file this issue instead to start the discussion.Does this seem like a reasonable change to the metrics? What's the best way to implement it? Should I just extend cloudprovider.NodeGroup and take the aesthetic hit?