这是indexloc提供的服务,不要输入任何密码
Skip to content

feat: Record READ_ROW metrics for single row calls #1612

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

Conversation

danieljbruce
Copy link
Contributor

@danieljbruce danieljbruce commented Jun 2, 2025

Description

Mattie pointed out an important requirement here which needs this change in place. This PR ensures the right client side metrics are collected for the right methods.

Impact

User calls with row.get will now write client side metrics for READ_ROW instead of READ_ROWS as required. This change ensures the right metrics are collected for the right methods.

Testing

  • A whole bunch of the mocks needed to change as is usually the case when you move source code around
  • Added tests to ensure the metrics are being written properly for READ_ROW case

Additional Information

@danieljbruce danieljbruce requested review from a team as code owners June 2, 2025 20:51
@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added size: xl Pull request size is extra large. api: bigtable Issues related to the googleapis/nodejs-bigtable API. labels Jun 2, 2025

makeNewRequest();
return userStream;
return createReadStreamInternal(this, true, opts);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why is this true? I think createReadStream is for scan not reading a single row?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes. This should be false. I did this in a hurry so we should add some tests to check this.

@danieljbruce danieljbruce requested a review from mutianf June 3, 2025 13:50
@danieljbruce
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mutianf Thanks for the reviews. The main purpose of this PR was to provide reviews for one particular change in isolation and get some eyes on it before applying it to all the readRows work. Now that we agree the changes are directionally correct, I think its fine if we merge this into the ReadRows branch and continue review on this code there to unblock progress.

@danieljbruce danieljbruce merged commit 5bf194e into 359913994-third-PR-CSM Jun 4, 2025
14 of 16 checks passed
@danieljbruce danieljbruce deleted the 359913994-third-PR-CSM-separate-readrow-and-getrows branch June 4, 2025 13:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api: bigtable Issues related to the googleapis/nodejs-bigtable API. size: xl Pull request size is extra large.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants