feat: add enforcement latency metric with operation labels by rawadhossain · Pull Request #450 · kubernetes-sigs/node-readiness-controller

rawadhossain · 2026-08-24T10:17:37Z

Description

Adds node_readiness_enforcement_latency_seconds with add/remove operation labels, keeping node_readiness_reconciliation_latency_seconds unchanged.
Updates scale PromQL queries and the scalability report.
Updates monitoring.md and docs/TEST_README.md.
Adds related tests.

from the design doc:

Related to #446

Type of Change

/kind feature

Testing

make test, make lint, go vet, gofmt -l all pass.

Checklist

make test passes
make lint passes

netlify · 2026-08-24T10:17:45Z

✅ Deploy Preview for node-readiness-controller canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`d959fad`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/node-readiness-controller/deploys/6a968d8d4cd10f0009078c8a

kubernetes-prow · 2026-08-24T10:17:47Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rawadhossain
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign haircommander for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

kubernetes-prow · 2026-08-24T10:17:48Z

Hi @rawadhossain. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Tip

We noticed you've done this a few times! Consider joining the org to skip this step and gain /lgtm and other bot rights. We recommend asking approvers on your previous PRs to sponsor you.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

rawadhossain · 2026-08-26T08:20:35Z

/cc @ajaysundark

rawadhossain · 2026-08-28T18:07:21Z

/cc @AvineshTripathi

AvineshTripathi

/lgtm

left some minor question

AvineshTripathi · 2026-08-29T13:25:11Z

+					labelNames[l.GetName()] = true
+				}
+			}
+			for _, want := range []string{"rule", "operation"} {


Do we really need this check? CollectAndCompare should already check this right?

yeah fair, thought to have a cleaner failure message thats why put it there, but you're right its redundant. Removed it.

FYI: another reason for #447 (review) comment

AvineshTripathi · 2026-08-29T13:26:58Z

/ok-to-test

rawadhossain · 2026-08-29T14:13:38Z

@AvineshTripathi i dont know why the CI check is failing in every PR. From my end everything looks fine.

AvineshTripathi · 2026-08-29T14:21:26Z

It's seems slack invite redirection is down. I have raised this in their channel. Will ping you there

AvineshTripathi

/lgtm

left a minor suggestion
Tested the metrics part locally. However, didn't run the scale test though

AvineshTripathi · 2026-08-30T11:50:41Z

 	}

-	recordLatency := func(operation string) {
+	recordLatency := func(operation string, enforcementOperation metrics.EnforcementOperation) {


why not both metrics.<metrics-name>. inconsistency here

AvineshTripathi · 2026-08-30T11:56:44Z

@rawadhossain please resolve the conflicts too. Thanks!

Signed-off-by: Rawad Hossain <rawad.hossain00@gmail.com>

rawadhossain · 2026-09-01T08:36:07Z

@AvineshTripathi resolved the conflicts and inconsistency.
Also applied the same test refactor here as in #447 (review). lmk if this looks good. Thanks.

AvineshTripathi

/lgtm

wouldn't we get conflicts when one of the PR gets merged regarding the util func

rawadhossain · 2026-09-05T11:43:41Z

Yes probably we would. Will have to resolve the conflict afterwards.

kubernetes-prow Bot added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Aug 24, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Aug 24, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot requested review from mrunalp and tallclair August 24, 2026 10:17

kubernetes-prow Bot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 24, 2026

rawadhossain mentioned this pull request Aug 24, 2026

[TRACKING] Update Existing Metrics #446

Open

6 tasks

kubernetes-prow Bot requested a review from ajaysundark August 26, 2026 08:20

kubernetes-prow Bot requested a review from AvineshTripathi August 28, 2026 18:07

AvineshTripathi reviewed Aug 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

kubernetes-prow Bot assigned AvineshTripathi Aug 29, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 29, 2026

kubernetes-prow Bot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 29, 2026

rawadhossain force-pushed the enforcement-latency-seconds branch from 9b1a813 to 68de79c Compare August 29, 2026 14:09

kubernetes-prow Bot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 29, 2026

rawadhossain force-pushed the enforcement-latency-seconds branch from 68de79c to bd881be Compare August 29, 2026 14:10

AvineshTripathi reviewed Aug 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

kubernetes-prow Bot added lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Aug 30, 2026

rawadhossain force-pushed the enforcement-latency-seconds branch from bd881be to 3ce515a Compare August 30, 2026 16:13

kubernetes-prow Bot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 30, 2026

rawadhossain force-pushed the enforcement-latency-seconds branch from 3ce515a to b07d00d Compare August 30, 2026 16:32

kubernetes-prow Bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 30, 2026

enforcement latency metric

d959fad

Signed-off-by: Rawad Hossain <rawad.hossain00@gmail.com>

rawadhossain force-pushed the enforcement-latency-seconds branch from b07d00d to d959fad Compare September 1, 2026 08:32

AvineshTripathi reviewed Sep 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

kubernetes-prow Bot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Conversation

rawadhossain commented Aug 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

from the design doc:

Related to #446

Type of Change

Testing

Checklist

Uh oh!

netlify Bot commented Aug 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for node-readiness-controller canceled.

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Aug 24, 2026

Uh oh!

kubernetes-prow Bot commented Aug 24, 2026

Uh oh!

rawadhossain commented Aug 26, 2026

Uh oh!

rawadhossain commented Aug 28, 2026

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi Aug 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rawadhossain Aug 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi Aug 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi commented Aug 29, 2026

Uh oh!

rawadhossain commented Aug 29, 2026

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi commented Aug 29, 2026

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi Aug 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi commented Aug 30, 2026

Uh oh!

rawadhossain commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

AvineshTripathi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rawadhossain commented Sep 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

rawadhossain commented Aug 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

netlify Bot commented Aug 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading