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

[Custom threshold] Copy action variables Serverless testing for the custom threshold rule #167897

Closed
Tracked by #179158
maryam-saeidi opened this issue Oct 3, 2023 · 6 comments Β· Fixed by #179136
Closed
Tracked by #179158
Assignees
Labels
chore Feature:Alerting Team:obs-ux-management Observability Management User Experience Team

Comments

@maryam-saeidi
Copy link
Member

πŸ“ Summary

In this ticket, we want to copy the same logic as this PR for the serverless tests.

βœ… Acceptance Criteria

  • Add action variables Serverless testing for the custom threshold rule
@maryam-saeidi maryam-saeidi added chore Team: Actionable Observability - DEPRECATED For Observability Alerting and SLOs use "Team:obs-ux-management", for AIops "Team:obs-knowledge" labels Oct 3, 2023
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/actionable-observability (Team: Actionable Observability)

@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/obs-ux-management-team (Team:obs-ux-management)

@paulb-elastic paulb-elastic removed the Team: Actionable Observability - DEPRECATED For Observability Alerting and SLOs use "Team:obs-ux-management", for AIops "Team:obs-knowledge" label Nov 14, 2023
@paulb-elastic
Copy link
Contributor

As with #167518 (comment), this would ideally be able to run for both serverless and stateful, rather than duplicated

@maryam-saeidi maryam-saeidi changed the title [AO] Add action variables Serverless testing for the custom threshold rule [Custom threshold] Copy action variables Serverless testing for the custom threshold rule Mar 8, 2024
@chrisdistasio
Copy link

@paulb-elastic @jasonrhodes is this something that needs consideration before we move forward with serverless ungated or ga? is obs ux: mgmt the correct team to own?

cc: @vinaychandrasekhar

@vinaychandrasekhar
Copy link

@jasonrhodes

@jasonrhodes
Copy link
Member

@chrisdistasio yes, we should probably have these tests in place before serverless wide adoption increases. (Both this and #167518)

@maryam-saeidi maryam-saeidi self-assigned this Mar 20, 2024
maryam-saeidi added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 22, 2024
…179136)

Closes #167897
Closes #167518
Closes #175499

## Summary

I also added a refresh index after generating data-forge data to
decrease the time of running tests and making sure data is available
when the rule is executed, which in one instance, the time of the tests
decreased from `30.0s` to `15.7s` πŸŽ‰

|Before|After|
|---|---|

|![image](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/assets/12370520/173ab47c-3d23-4e88-bb80-c60d59a3b4bd)|![image](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/assets/12370520/e6bedd5c-c920-4bc5-ab76-91f3e420aa1e)|

|![image](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/assets/12370520/31adbaa4-ada0-4d80-be29-05be8f72818a)|![image](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/assets/12370520/75b398d1-53d9-44b0-bbdf-b8826d25de69)|

[200] Flaky test runner:
https://buildkite.com/elastic/kibana-flaky-test-suite-runner/builds/5539
βœ…

Commands to run test locally:
```
// Server
node scripts/functional_tests_server.js --config x-pack/test_serverless/api_integration/test_suites/observability/config.feature_flags.ts

// One test (Remove --include to run all tests)
node scripts/functional_test_runner --config=x-pack/test_serverless/api_integration/test_suites/observability/config.feature_flags.ts --include=x-pack/test_serverless/api_integration/test_suites/observability/custom_threshold_rule/p99_pct_fired.ts
```

---------

Co-authored-by: kibanamachine <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
chore Feature:Alerting Team:obs-ux-management Observability Management User Experience Team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants