Skip to content
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.

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

out_stackdriver: use the correct project ID #2608

Merged

Conversation

StevenYCChou
Copy link
Contributor

@StevenYCChou StevenYCChou commented Sep 28, 2020

The value for project ID of monitored resources of a LogEntry should be
project ID, not the project number, which is in numeric format.

The value of the project ID of Cloud Logging's Monitored Resources are
documented in
https://cloud.google.com/logging/docs/api/v2/resource-list.

The project ID to be retrived from instance metadata is documented in
https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/storing-retrieving-metadata#default.


Enter [N/A] in the box, if an item is not applicable to your change.

Testing
Before we can approve your change; please submit the following in a comment:

  • Example configuration file for the change
  • Debug log output from testing the change
  • Attached Valgrind output that shows no leaks or memory corruption was found

Documentation

  • Documentation required for this feature

Fluent Bit is licensed under Apache 2.0, by submitting this pull request I understand that this code will be released under the terms of that license.

The value for project ID of monitored resources of a LogEntry should be
project ID, not the project number, which is in numeric format.

The value of the project ID of Cloud Logging's Monitored Resources are
documented in
https://cloud.google.com/logging/docs/api/v2/resource-list.

The project ID to be retrived from instance metadata is documented in
https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/storing-retrieving-metadata#default.

Signed-off-by: Yen-Cheng Chou <ycchou@google.com>
@StevenYCChou StevenYCChou force-pushed the correct-project-id-implementation branch from 8295b97 to 9a7689d Compare September 28, 2020 20:28
@edsiper edsiper merged commit 7dbfc0a into fluent:master Sep 28, 2020
@edsiper
Copy link
Member

edsiper commented Sep 28, 2020

thanks

@qingling128
Copy link
Collaborator

@edsiper - Is there a scheduled release any time soon that may contain this fix?

@edsiper
Copy link
Member

edsiper commented Sep 29, 2020 via email

@StevenYCChou
Copy link
Contributor Author

I thought the PR would be merged after it passes the tests - but I just realized this PR was merged and introducing a test failure. The test failure introduced in this PR should be fixed in #2611. @edsiper can you take a look on #2611 so we can close the loop of this PR?

Also a side note - I'd like to add note to the users of stackdriver output plugin as even the project ID should be the one proposed in this PR, it would be an incompatible change for the users, so users should be aware of it.

@edsiper
Copy link
Member

edsiper commented Sep 29, 2020

@StevenYCChou it should! but I did a bad assumption about a known Travis problem, sorry about that.

#2611 is already merged.

@qingling128
Copy link
Collaborator

@edsiper - Hi, just checking in for the Fluent Bit 1.6 release status. Is it still scheduled for this week?

@edsiper
Copy link
Member

edsiper commented Oct 6, 2020

@qingling128 yes, Thursday 08

@qingling128
Copy link
Collaborator

Great. Thanks for the heads up!

@StevenYCChou
Copy link
Contributor Author

StevenYCChou commented Oct 9, 2020

@edsiper - it seems that the head of master branch passes all the tests. Is it scheduled to be released today? If not, do you recommend using source code from the commit which passes all the tests?

Just wonder whether there are other sets of tests would be run before the maintainers publish an official release.

@edsiper
Copy link
Member

edsiper commented Oct 9, 2020

the release is under process now...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants