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

Make time format configruable. #813

Closed

Conversation

VihasMakwana
Copy link
Contributor

@VihasMakwana VihasMakwana requested review from a team as code owners June 15, 2023 09:13
@jvoravong
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @VihasMakwana,
Can you describe in more detail what actually breaks or doesn't work as expected? Providing example logs and results would also be very helpful.

@VihasMakwana
Copy link
Contributor Author

VihasMakwana commented Jun 21, 2023

@jvoravong

Hey @VihasMakwana, Can you describe in more detail what actually breaks or doesn't work as expected? Providing example logs and results would also be very helpful.

From the linked issue:

  • Our logs pipeline assumes kubernetes host will be in UTC. While this is definitely the most common scenario, and we do encourage users to always use UTC, if the host is not set to UTC, it breaks our hardcoded parsing logic.
  • Ideally we should improve the regex to be able to handle the chance the host timestamp may not be UTC/Z and parse out the timestamp correctly.

Example of contained runtime with a different timezone:

2023-01-23T12:09:28.344779078-06:00 stdout F {"caller":"service_controller.go:103","controller":"ServiceReconciler","end reconcile":"kube-system/microk8s.io-hostpath","level":"info","ts":"2023-01-23T18:09:28Z"}
2023-01-23T12:09:28.344779078-06:00 stdout F {"caller":"service_controller.go:103","controller":"ServiceReconciler","end reconcile":"kube-system/microk8s.io-hostpath","level":"info","ts":"2023-01-23T18:09:28Z"}

The above wouldn't match the hardcoded regex.

For more details about reproducing this, refer #644 (comment).

@dmitryax
Copy link
Contributor

Is the issue fixed now by #817 ? I would like to avoid introducing new configuration options if they are not strictly required

@jvoravong
Copy link
Contributor

Left a similar comment as @dmitryax in the related issue. Was waiting for confirmation from involved reporters.

@VihasMakwana
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this one, will raise another PR for #829

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