lukecwik commented on a change in pull request #16547:
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/16547#discussion_r787108800
##########
File path:
sdks/java/io/google-cloud-platform/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/io/gcp/spanner/BatchSpannerRead.java
##########
@@ -193,15 +193,16 @@ public void processElement(ProcessContext c) throws
Exception {
}
private ServiceCallMetric createServiceCallMetric(
- String projectId, String databaseId, String tableId) {
+ @Nullable String projectId, String databaseId, String tableId) {
HashMap<String, String> baseLabels = new HashMap<>();
baseLabels.put(MonitoringInfoConstants.Labels.PTRANSFORM, "");
baseLabels.put(MonitoringInfoConstants.Labels.SERVICE, "Spanner");
baseLabels.put(MonitoringInfoConstants.Labels.METHOD, "Read");
baseLabels.put(
MonitoringInfoConstants.Labels.RESOURCE,
GcpResourceIdentifiers.spannerTable(projectId, databaseId, tableId));
- baseLabels.put(MonitoringInfoConstants.Labels.SPANNER_PROJECT_ID,
projectId);
+ baseLabels.put(
+ MonitoringInfoConstants.Labels.SPANNER_PROJECT_ID, (projectId ==
null ? "" : projectId));
Review comment:
The ServiceCallMetric was written to be per service call instance so
moving it to `@Setup` will break status code reporting since the label
representing the status code will be overwritten by subsequent calls. I agree
that the implementation choice of combining instantiation and reporting of the
status code was a poor choice but we should go back to the original
implementation and address that perf issue later.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
