mmkay commented 2 months ago

This PR updates tracing and tempo_cluster interface definitions and their respective interface tests. It also:

retires tracing v0 interface that is no longer supported by any of the tempo charms
adds tempo-coordinator to charms that support tracing v2

In order for the tests to pass, this PR requires https://github.com/canonical/tempo-worker-k8s-operator/pull/27 and https://github.com/canonical/tempo-coordinator-k8s-operator/pull/32 to be merged first.

Context

tracing interface has been under development for the last 2 cycles. As the interface has already stabilised on v2 and we've migrated all the charms and documentation to use v2, we dropped support for older tracing versions in tempo charm: https://github.com/canonical/tempo-k8s-operator/pull/108 ; we also made sure that any user of the older tracing interfaces has migrated to the new one.
tempo_cluster is a new interface that we're implementing in the in-development Tempo HA charms: https://github.com/canonical/tempo-coordinator-k8s-operator and https://github.com/canonical/tempo-worker-k8s-operator . This interface is responsible for passing data between coordinator and worker charms. An early version of this interface was pushed out in #158, however since that push we have aligned the three sets of charms following the same coordinator-worker pattern (Tempo HA, Loki HA and Mimir HA) to use common code objects (see https://github.com/canonical/observability/blob/main/decision-records/2024-06-14--coordinated-multirole-workers.md ) for the decision spec. Part of the change was switching to a shared databag model, using worker_config instead of the dedicated config names for each of the solutions.
this PR is aiming to reflect these changes that don't have an impact on any of the end users as the only consumers of these interfaces were either internal (development-only) or have already migrated away from the retired protocol.

simskij commented 2 months ago

@benhoyt @tonyandrewmeyer @dimaqq @IronCore864: could one of you have a look at this one? I preferably don't want to approve my own team's PRs.

dimaqq commented 2 months ago

Main question: what does "to match current state" (PR heading) mean? Context additional to the PR description would also help 🙏🏻

mmkay commented 1 month ago

Main question: what does "to match current state" (PR heading) mean? Context additional to the PR description would also help 🙏🏻

@dimaqq: I have added an explanation in the description of the PR. Hope it explains the changes well enough but please feel free to ask to clarify anything that still seems off.

tonyandrewmeyer commented 1 month ago

For the failing tests, I think @canonical/charm-tech need to do some additional work in getting both this repo and pytest-interface-tester to be fully Scenario 7 compatible. @IronCore864 and/or I will work on that today.

IronCore864 commented 1 month ago

Per discussion on Mattermost, this PR has been reviewed and tested locally, and everything passes. Regarding the failed quality checks (unit tests and integration tests), please merge the main branch (which contains the fix here). @mmkay

canonical / charm-relation-interfaces

Update models and interface tests for `tracing` and `tempo_cluster` to match current state #174

Context