fluent-bit
fluent-bit copied to clipboard
fluent
Retrieve Kubernetes pod IP address if it is set in status.podIP
This PR exposes the Kubernetes pod IP address if it has been set.
Fixes: https://github.com/fluent/fluent-bit/issues/2301
Enter [N/A] in the box, if an item is not applicable to your change.
Testing Before we can approve your change; please submit the following in a comment:
- [ N/A ] Example configuration file for the change
- [ N/A ] Debug log output from testing the change
- [ N/A ] Attached Valgrind output that shows no leaks or memory corruption was found
Documentation
- [ N/A ] Documentation required for this feature
Fluent Bit is licensed under Apache 2.0, by submitting this pull request I understand that this code will be released under the terms of that license.
This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.
@kgtw thanks for such useful improvement, I hope it will be reviewed and merged.
This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.
Can we get some response about this PR? It's something really needed for fluent-bit users.
Promtrail already supports it and it's a shame if we're forced to migrate "just cause" we can't have a pod IP.
@kgtw thanks for such useful improvement, I hope it will be reviewed and merged.
@edsiper @fujimotos @koleini Any chance that this PR gets merged? It is funny that in the documentation it is stated
Our Kubernetes Filter plugin is fully inspired by the Fluentd Kubernetes Metadata Filter written by Jimmi Dyson.
but the pod IP is missing in the Kubernetes filter for Fluent Bit. Depending on the use case the pod IP is an important piece of metadata.
Thanks.
Can you rebase to force the various checks to run? I'm guessing it was Github issues at the time.
Can you rebase to force the various checks to run? I'm guessing it was Github issues at the time.
@kgtw FYI.
@patrick-stephens I guess someone from the reviewers' list needs to approve the PR first before the various checks can run. At least that is what I read from the Action itself.
-> https://github.com/fluent/fluent-bit/actions/runs/2568072268
@dan-leanix yeah it's to help with security and prevent spurious PRs causing issues as they will run on the Fluent resources. Plus quite often an initial review will highlight some issues that need resolving immediately anyway so not worth running until those are done.
Thanks, @patrick-stephens for the explanation. It makes total sense.
@kgtw Seems to be that the issue with the tests is that the expected record does not match the actual record. Hence, the expected record is missing the pod_ip.
filter_kubernetes.c:156: Check comparing expected record with actual record... failed
This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.
@edsiper I know this PR is quite old, but would this be something you'd be up to adding to fluent-bit? It would help a lot with migrating from fluentd.
Is there any path forward with this pull request? We're also migrating from fluentd, and this field is missing in fluent bit. It would be great to get some feedback so that someone else can take over the PR if the original contributor is unavailable.
Hi to all who've commented 👋
If there is anybody who would like to take over, feel free to. I've since moved on to other engineering domains so am no longer active in this space.
After this PR had no interest from the maintainers within the first two years of it being opened I gave up any hope of it ever being merged.
I still believe the intent behind this PR holds merit that many would benefit from and hope that the maintainers see from the continued activity within this PR that people are still looking for a solution.
The code looks ok to me, however the unit test seems not to consider a proper input file and just validate the output, I have my doubts. Unit test is pending.
