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

Feat performance monitoring #189

Conversation

rahulreddy15
Copy link
Contributor

@rahulreddy15 rahulreddy15 commented Jan 2, 2025

PR to merge performance monitoring code from the fork to the branch epic_db_query_performance_monitoring

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jan 2, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@tharun0064 tharun0064 force-pushed the feat_performance_monitoring branch 3 times, most recently from a3610b4 to a920d40 Compare January 8, 2025 06:47
@rahulreddy15 rahulreddy15 changed the base branch from master to epic_db_query_performance_monitoring January 8, 2025 08:35
@rahulreddy15 rahulreddy15 marked this pull request as ready for review January 9, 2025 04:18
@rahulreddy15 rahulreddy15 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 9, 2025 04:18
Copy link
Contributor

@rajrohanyadav rajrohanyadav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi, I only reviewed the new code, and would not have 100% confidence on any impacts on the older code. Therefore, additional reviews would be required.

  • As pointed by the linter, some files are not formatted correctly.
  • It is difficult to assert and understand the logic without any comments or unit tests. Can we please add unit tests for all logical functions and utils. Please add any comments helpful to understand what's going on :).
  • I also see some code duplication as pointed by the linter as well. We should check if that can be removed.
  • If we can, I think it can be refactored to only check for version once as the integration is running for a single DBMS, and build our struct based on that, which can still have the same functions for getting query metrics. But use different adapters based on the version. This could remove some duplication and improve readability.
  • It would be helpful if the PR description is updated with some more details and testing details.

Thanks

Copy link
Contributor

@tharun0064 tharun0064 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rajrohanyadav
Thanks for reviewing the PR
can you mention the comments with criticality as P0 ,P1 etc
we will work on them accordingly

@rajrohanyadav
Copy link
Contributor

@rajrohanyadav Thanks for reviewing the PR can you mention the comments with criticality as P0 ,P1 etc we will work on them accordingly

P0 - Unit tests
P1 - Everything else (that we can accomplish) :)

Copy link
Contributor

@tharun0064 tharun0064 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rajrohanyadav
Added unit test-cases

@rahulreddy15 rahulreddy15 force-pushed the feat_performance_monitoring branch from 46847de to 8509bcd Compare January 16, 2025 13:56
tharun0064 and others added 26 commits February 12, 2025 15:06
* resolved: review comments
Feat: resolved review comments
* Refactored Integration Tests

* Fixed linting errors

* Fixed linting errors again

* Fixed linting errors again again

* Fixed linting errors again again again

* linting is back

* linting is back again

* linting is back again again

* linting is back again again again

* linting is back again again again again
resolved : review comments
fix lint issues
Feat : resolved review comments
* resolved: refactored unit test cases
* resolved : review comments

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
 fix: lint issues

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>

* added more scenerios for unit test cases

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
* rename variable

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
 resolved : review comments
---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
* remove unused variables

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
* resolved: review comments

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
Feat: resolved review comments
* add check while fetching execution plan

* resolved : lint issues

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
Fix: Resolved review comments

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
* execution plan data model fix
* add default description

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
* feat: resolved review comments

* update execution plan schema

* feat: change in variable name

* feat: change in variable

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
* feat: resolved  review commets

* fix: lint issues

---------

Co-authored-by: Jyothi Surampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jsurampudi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rahul Reddy <[email protected]>
@rahulreddy15 rahulreddy15 force-pushed the feat_performance_monitoring branch from c2e75f1 to 58e636e Compare February 12, 2025 09:37
Copy link
Contributor

@sairaj18 sairaj18 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Most of the comments were addressed. Jira's were created to handle Tech Debt. For more info refer

LGTM

@sairaj18 sairaj18 merged commit daf69cc into newrelic:epic_db_query_performance_monitoring Feb 12, 2025
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants