NETOBSERV-1684 Auto teardown after some time / number of flows / packets

[jpinsonneau]

Description

Auto teardown after some time / number of flows / packets
Also took the opportunity to add log level argument and improve display

oc netobserv flows --max-time=30s --max-bytes=1000000 --log-level=trace --sport=443 --direction=Ingress

Running network-observability-cli as Flow Capture
Log level: trace Duration: 28s Capture size: 116KB
Filters:    sport=443 direction=Ingress

          --log-level: components logs (default: info)
          --max-time: maximum capture time (default: 5m)
          --max-bytes: maximum capture bytes (default: 50000000 = 50MB)

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).

[openshift-ci]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 11.42857% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.53%. Comparing base (cccd05d) to head (8ac4491).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #59      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   28.99%   28.53%   -0.47%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines        1045     1076      +31     
==========================================
+ Hits          303      307       +4     
- Misses        720      747      +27     
  Partials       22       22              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	28.53% <11.42%> (-0.47%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
cmd/root.go	60.60% <100.00%> (+2.54%)	⬆️
cmd/flow_capture.go	32.55% <6.25%> (-1.13%)	⬇️
cmd/packet_capture.go	29.82% <5.88%> (-3.51%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[msherif1234]

pls update the flows doc with the new commands

[msherif1234]

FYI the example u have in PR description is missing --enable_filter=true as flow filtering not on by default

[msherif1234]

do u need to handle cases where user pass only either maxBytes or maxTime but not both ?

[jpinsonneau]

if user pass only one of these, the default is used for the other one:

	rootCmd.PersistentFlags().DurationVarP(&maxTime, "maxtime", "", 5*time.Minute, "Maximum capture time")
	rootCmd.PersistentFlags().Int64VarP(&maxBytes, "maxbytes", "", 50000000, "Maximum capture bytes")

[msherif1234]

I was more of thinking I wanted to skip one and use the other for example if I know I am sampling large packets so I wanted to skip maxBytes check and just use maxTime?

[jpinsonneau]

hm that's right ... maybe I should allow -1 value as no limit ?

It would feel strange that the behavior of one of these two changes according to the other so I feel it's the best option here. WDYT ?

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-cli:679bb17

It will expire after two weeks.

To use this build, update your commands using:

USER=netobserv VERSION=679bb17 make commands

or download the updated commands.

[Amoghrd]

/label qe-approved

[openshift-ci]

@Amoghrd: The label(s) qe-approved cannot be applied, because the repository doesn't have them.

In response to this:

/label qe-approved

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 kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[jpinsonneau]

pls update the flows doc with the new commands

done in 8ac4491
Thanks for the reminder 😸

[msherif1234]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by:

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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