►
From YouTube: 2021-06-16 meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
A
C
Anthony
did
you
have
a
chance
to
run
the
compliance
tests?
You
know
yesterday
or
today.
D
I
have
not
run
them
recently.
I
can
do
that
real
quick,
but
the
the
metric
and
stillness
metric
prs
have
not
been
merged
yet
so
I
don't
expect
those
to
be
resolved.
A
C
All
right
so
we're
gonna
gonna
quickly
run
the
tests,
but
I
also
wanted
to
actually
bring
up
the.
C
Hey
manu,
can
you
list
any
of
the
other
items
that
are
pending
in
terms
of
being
pending
review
or
merge?
Is
it
the
stainless.
E
C
So
again,
I'm
skipping
around
a
bit
because
we're
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
have
all
the
at
least
for
the
first
phase.
What
we
are
targeting
is,
you
know,
completeness
of
all
the
compliance
tests,
remote
right
compliance
tests
passing
so
that's
something
that
you
know.
We've
filed
all
the
prs
stillness
marker
pr
was
the
last
one
left
and
manual
just
filed
the
2prs
related
to
that
they
would
love
to
have
your
review
david,
anthony
and
jay.
If
you
guys
have
a
chance
wish.
Also,
that
would
be
great
brian.
C
D
Yeah
I
just
finished
running
those
the
500
retries
have
been
fixed,
the
ionosphere
was
merged,
so
that's
good.
Current
state
against
the
head
of
the
collector
is
up
invalid
and
stillness
are
the
three
failing
tests
up
and
invalid
will
be
fixed
by
3116
and
stillness
will
be
fixed
by
emmanuel's.
D
C
G
G
We
were
shutting
down
shutting
down
discovery,
but
not
shooting
out
scrapers.
So
when
the
receiver
stopped,
it
was
still
like
scraping
everything.
So
I'm
not
sure
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
better
knowledge
than
I
do.
I'm
kind
of
the
internals
it'd
be
great.
If
you
could
take
a
look
at
it
see
but
yeah,
it
seems
to
be
windows
specific,
which
is
annoying.
C
Yeah,
it
is
interesting
because
I
see
these
windows
test
failures
pretty
often
on
the
collector
pr's.
I
don't
know
what's
going
on
there,
but
we'll
you
know
definitely
would
be
useful.
Yeah
yeah
get
other
people's
reviews
again
vishwa
or
any
of
one
on
your
team.
Would
you
guys
have
special
knowledge
there.
H
I'll
take
a
look,
the
the
test,
shelter.
C
Okay,
if
you
can
please
I
mean
just
take
a
look.
Maybe
it's
something
very
simple:
that
we
are
missing.
G
C
G
C
Okay
cool,
so
I
think
that
other
than
that
we
are,
you
know
going
to
start
working
on
the
on
the
next
set
of
fixes
for
the
for
the
prometheus
pipeline,
which
is
the
load
balancing
based
on
the
overall
design
that
anthony
had
presented
earlier.
So
that's
something
that's
upcoming,
but
you
know
we.
What
do
we
want
to
target
by
next
week,
at
least
so
that
we
can
build
a
release
with
these
changes?
Is
all
the
prw
compliance
tests
passing
so
that's
kind
of
our
objective,
short-term
objective.
C
That
said,
there
is
also
another
interesting
related
issue
that
you
know
we
have
presented
in
the
in
the
collector
site,
and
this
is
related
because
it's
the
metrics
processor
redesign
and
again
just
wanted
to
paste
it
here
also
for
your
attention,
so
that
you
know
you
guys
should
definitely
take
a
look
and
read
through
it.
It
is
a
proposal
for
rewriting
the
metrics
processor
in
the
collector.
Again
bogdan
has
been,
I
think,
rethinking
or
thinking
about
you
know
how
we
can
consolidate
the
processors
that
have
been
written
in.
C
You
know
as
needed
in
the
collector
into
three
main
processors,
which
are
the
span:
processor,
metrics
and
logs
processors.
So
again
it
will
hopefully
not
influence
our
pipeline,
but
just
just
you
know
would
love
to
get
your
feedback
there.
C
Is
there
anything
else
manual
that
you
wanted
to
cover
in
the
stairless
markers?
I
think
that's.
We
can
take
a
look
at.
E
It
yep
we're
all
good.
The
pr's
are
ready
for
review
and
I
tested
them
out
with
the
remote
right
exporter.
C
C
David
thank
you
for
reviewing
these
and
I
think
the
second
one
probably
needs
a
review
too.
C
Okay,
so
the
second
one,
three
four,
two
three
and
I'll,
just
maybe
I
can
just
share
my.
C
C
This
one,
which
is
having
some
checks,
fail.
E
A
A
E
Yeah,
I'm
going
to
rebase
that
as
soon
as
I
get
home,
okay,
okay,
noise
and
then
also,
we
won't
have
any
lint
errors
or
any
of
that
those
are
flakes
from
a
prior
commit.
Okay,
okay,
thanks
and
tigran
just
helped
us
us
merge
one.
C
Yeah
so
once
you've
rebased,
then
let
me
know
and
I'll
mark
it.
I
mean
we
should
run
the
tests,
they
should
be
okay
and
I
can
market.
C
Are
there
any
other
items
that
grace
or
vishwa,
or
that
david
you
guys
had
or
brian.
I
The
pr
for
the
proof
testing
is
on
me
right
now.
Tigran
left
a
couple
more
feedback
comments
this
morning
that
I
need
to
address
for
it:
okay,
okay,
thank
you.
C
H
So
we
are
starting
to
look
into
the
the
operator
now,
so
I
was
playing
with
it,
so
the
sharding
is
not
merged.
Yet.
H
Correct
work
in
progress:
okay,
okay,
cool!
Is
there
any
any
any
branch
that
I
can
look
into
for
sharding
or.
C
C
There
is
a
branch
we
are
working
on
in
our
org,
so
we
can
definitely
share
that.
D
There's
a
a
branch
in
the
wg
prometheus
repo
in
open
telemetry.
That
has
a
proof
of
concept
for
how
the
operator
charting
will
work.
It's
it's
different
from
what
we're
going
to
end
up
going
with,
because
that
had
built
into
the
collector
a
grpc
endpoint
to
receive
target
updates.
But
the
concept
is
still
the
same:
that
there
will
be
some
component
that
the
operator
manages
that
runs
the
discovery
and
then
provides
targets
to
a
set
of
collectors
that
are
running.
D
So,
if
you
want
to
see
something,
that's
directionally
aligned,
there's
code
there
that
that
works,
but
the
the
actual
implementation
that
we're
going
with
is
going
to
be
slightly
different.
C
H
Oh
one
more
thing,
so
I
was
just
you
know,
trying
to
go
to
figure
out
what
extent
I
can
go.
So
I
put
the
collector
on
like
like
120
plus
note
cluster.
I
couldn't
make
it
work.
It
seems
like
it's
moving
like
in
a
few
seconds.
The
only
targets
that
I
had
there
was
you
not
exported
scrape
from
all
those
120
plus
nodes.
H
C
So
vishal,
I
just
shared
the
pr
that
anthony
was
referring
to
on
the
prometheus
web
group.
Again,
it's
a
proof
of
concept.
So
please
take
a
look,
but
you
know,
as
he
said,
what
we
are
implementing.
Finally,
is
not
not
exactly.
A
D
D
C
And
then
I
think
that
if
we
can,
you
know
maybe
anthony
we
can
get
rahul
and
alex
to
present
on
the
on
this
pr
that
we
are
working
on
starting
to
work
on
for
the
operator.
So
maybe
next
time
we
can
do
that
all
right.
Are
there
any
other
questions
or
concerns?
For
example,
again
I
think
we're
moving
a
bit
slowly,
but
you
know
we've
been
working
on
these
different
tests.
David
are
there
any?
C
Even
though
you're
not
on
mute
on
the
call.
C
F
C
No,
I
was
just
listening
too.
Okay,
all
right,
okay,
cool!
I
mean,
I
think,
do
folks
have
any
other
questions.
We
can
wait
for
a
minute
or
two.
Otherwise
we
can
actually
give
some
time
back
to
folks
before
get
some
breakfast.
C
H
C
H
Example,
the
issue
of
arcmetric
not
flowing,
I
think,
because
people
can
take
the
metric
and
drive
to
any
you
know
destination
any
sync.
Any.
I
H
D
Well,
it's
also
been
the
case
that
most
of
the
things
that
we've
had
to
do
to
address
the
compliance
test
failures
have
been
in
the
receiver,
because
what
the
compliance
test
is
actually
testing
is
that
you
can
take
a
given
set
of
prometheus
exposition
and
run
that
three
pipeline
that
produces
a
remote
right
request
and
that
that
remote
write
request
looks
correct
according
to
the
compliance
test
rules.
So
it
is
testing
both
the
receiver
and
the
exporter,
and
most
of
the
changes
we've
had
to
do
to
to
get
into
compliance
tests.
D
Passing
states
have
been
in
the
receiver.
C
E
E
Go
ahead
yeah,
so
I
was
saying
yesterday
we
actually
spoke
about
this
in
the
amazon
meeting.
Essentially
at
some
point
we
should
do
exactly
as
the
prior
speaker
had
spoken
about.
We
do
something
only
for
the
receiver
itself
and
compare
that
against
a
prometheus
server
that
will
actually
get
us
lots
of
headway.
C
Yep,
I
agree
because
I
mean
again.
I
think
that
the
only
reason
we
haven't
had
specific
tests
for
the
receiver
is
that
you
know
again.
Just
completeness
was
the
first
target
and
we
have
you.
You
know.
As
anthony
said,
the
remote
right
tests
have
kind
of
covered
the.
I
guess
the
end
to
end.
You
know
results,
but
having
specific
tests
for
the
receiver
would
be
good
vishwa.
C
Do
you
want
to
start
a
google
doc
or
you
know,
to
kind
of
outline
some
of
the
tests
you
have
in
mind
or
open
up
an
issue,
and
then
we
can
definitely,
you
know
work
together.
C
F
D
Otlp
or
from
some
other
source,
I
don't
know
to
what
extent
we
would
be
able
to
craft
tests
there
that
are
different
from
what's
in
the
prometheus
compliance
test
suite,
but
that's
a
path
that
is
worth
testing.
I
think
I.
C
You
know
receiving
metrics
from
lambda
layers,
and
so
that's
something
that
we'll
be
you
know
obviously
contributing
to
the
project.
Starting
to.
You
know,
work
on
that,
but
I
think
that
the
prometheus
remote
right
exporter,
especially
ingesting
when
otlp
metrics,
would
be
something
that
totally
will
have
tests
and
should
so
I
agree
with
you.
Maybe
we
can
pick
that
up
so
which
one,
if
you,
if
you
just
kind
of
start
prometheus
receiver,
you
know
kind
of
short
list
of
what
tests
we
should
have
I'll.
C
Take
a
crack
at
the
brw
exporter
test.
I
C
I'm
just
denoting
an
action
item,
any
any
other
points
that
we
wanted
to
bring
up
on.
Compliance
on
the
testing,
especially
the
other
area
that
we
are
working
on,
is
kind
of
building
out
a
you
know,
load
prometheus
metrics
data
generator
and
again
we'll
be.