Add new parser to be abble to simply count lines that match pattern

[tguenneguez]

Use Case

Be abble to simply count number of line in a stream that match or not a pattern. I will developpe this plugin, but first I share the goal.

Sample of specification :

Pattern Parser Plugin

The pattern parser creates metrics from a stream containing lines. It counts number of lines matching a pattern.

Configuration

[[inputs.file]]
  files = ["/tmp/test.log"]

  ## Data format to consume.
  ## Each data format has its own unique set of configuration options, read
  ## more about them here:
  ##   https://github.com/influxdata/telegraf/blob/master/docs/DATA_FORMATS_INPUT.md
  data_format = "pattern"

  ## This is a list of searches to check the given stream for.
  ## An entry can have the following properties:
  ##  tag_name    --  Name of the tag added to the metric.
  ##  tag_value   --  Value of the tag added to the metric.
  ##  pattern     --  Pattern searched in the stream.
  pattern_searches = [
      { tag_name = "severite", tag_value = "error", pattern = "error" },
      { tag_name = "severite", tag_value = "warning", pattern = "[Ww]arning" },
      { tag_name = "severite", tag_value = "connection timeout", pattern = "connection to .* timeout" },
    ]

Metrics

One metric is created for each search with tag "tag_name" contain "tag_value".

Examples

Config:

[[inputs.file]]
  files = ["example"]
  data_format = "pattern"
  pattern_searches = [
      { tag_name = "status", tag_value = "Job success", pattern = "Job successfully completed" }
      ]

Input:

Job failed to run

Output:

file_pattern,status=Job\ success match_count=0,not_match_count=1

Config:

[[inputs.file]]
  files = ["example"]
  data_format = "pattern"
  pattern_searches = [
      { tag_name = "error_code", tag_value = "2XX", pattern = "^([^ ]* ){3}\[.*\] "[^"]*" (2[0-9][0-9]) .*$" },
      { tag_name = "error_code", tag_value = "3XX", pattern = "^([^ ]* ){3}\[.*\] "[^"]*" (3[0-9][0-9]) .*$" },
      { tag_name = "error_code", tag_value = "4XX", pattern = "^([^ ]* ){3}\[.*\] "[^"]*" (4[0-9][0-9]) .*$" },
      { tag_name = "error_code", tag_value = "5XX", pattern = "^([^ ]* ){3}\[.*\] "[^"]*" (5[0-9][0-9]) .*$" },
    ]

Input:

10.158.236.103 - - [15/Oct/2024:13:58:15 +0200] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 14 2195 0 - "-" "-" -
10.158.236.103 - - [15/Oct/2024:13:58:15 +0200] "POST / HTTP/1.0" 201 14 2195 0 - "-" "-" -
10.158.236.103 - - [15/Oct/2024:13:58:15 +0200] "GET /test.html HTTP/1.0" 500 14 2195 0 - "-" "-" -
10.158.236.103 - - [15/Oct/2024:13:58:15 +0200] "GET /login HTTP/1.0" 400 14 2195 0 - "-" "-" -
10.158.236.103 - - [15/Oct/2024:13:59:15 +0200] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 14 2195 0 - "-" "-" -

Output:

file_pattern,error_code=2XX match_count=3,not_match_count=2
file_pattern,error_code=3XX match_count=0,not_match_count=5
file_pattern,error_code=4XX match_count=1,not_match_count=4
file_pattern,error_code=5XX match_count=1,not_match_count=4

Expected behavior

Have a simple plugin to count lines that match a pattern.

Actual behavior

In fact, some use cases are possible by combining grok and aggregator, but it is very heavy to implement. It is also very difficult to configure these plugins well, especially with logs whose content is not precisely structured. For example, counting the words "Error" anywhere in a string. Finally, if no line matches, no value is returned.

Additional info

No response

[julien64140]

Je me retrouve avec le même besoin de devoir récupérer le nombre d'occurrence sur une pattern recherchée. Je suis intéressé pour cette évolution

[srebhan]

Could we please stick to English here so everyone can participate in the discussion!?

[srebhan]

@tguenneguez would it make sense to extend the grok parser to be able to do this? The reason is that there are already many predefined patterns that can be used for matching... Furthermore, I wonder what the use case of not_match_count is?

[tguenneguez]

my point of view on the proposals 2 questions :

1. would it make sense to extend the grok parser to be able to do this ? The grok parser is very handy but it assumes that the content of the file respects a precise format known in advance. If you simply want to know the number of lines that contain KO, you must:

• define a custom pattern grok_custom_patterns = ''' SEARCH OK '''
• use this custom a pattern search grok_patterns = ["%{SEARCH:find_ok}"]
• use the agregator valuecounter to count number of occured line.
• do something that I don't know to have a default value of "0" if non line match

2. The reason is that there are already many predefined patterns that can be used for matching... Furthermore, I wonder what the use case of not_match_count is? if you know that an exe return in normal time a only line like : "treatment OK", you would know if there is lines that not match this string.

For a typical user (not a telegraf expert, or a developer of the solution), it is almost impossible to implement this system and make it work.

[srebhan]

@tguenneguez let me address some things you assume:

If you simply want to know the number of lines that contain KO, you must

No, that's wrong. Grok uses regular expression just like what you've shown in your initial post. With grok you just do have the additional benefit of being able to use predefined patterns instead of having the need to come up with regexp for standard things.

if you know that an exe return in normal time a only line like : "treatment OK", you would know if there is lines that not match this string.

Yeah but you could also use a "not matching" regexp for exactly this. Why do you assume that someone in general would be interested in this? Alternatively, we could define a flag that generates a "remaining" metric output which sets a special value.

In my view we should have

[[inputs.file]]
  files = ["example"]
  data_format = "grok"
  grok_named patterns = [ 
    { name = "2XX", pattern = " 2\d{2} " },
    { name = "3XX", pattern = " 3\d{2} " },
    { name = "4XX", pattern = ""%{WORD:method} %{PATH:path} HTTP/.?\..?" 4\d{2} " },
    { name = "5XX", pattern = ""%{WORD:method} %{PATH:path} HTTP/.?\..?" 5\d{2} " },
    { name = "default" }
 ]

which should result in

file,pattern=2XX value=0i
file,pattern=2XX value=0i
file,pattern=5XX method="GET",path="/test.html" value=0i
file,pattern=4XX method="GET",path="/login"
file,pattern=2XX value=0i

You then can aggregate over the methods and count the patterns if you wish. What do you think?

[tguenneguez]

Hello

Sorry for long time without reply ;-)

No, that's wrong. Grok uses regular expression just like what you've shown in your initial post. With grok you just do have the additional benefit of being able to use predefined patterns instead of having the need to come up with regexp for standard things.

With the current operation, it is mandatory to go through the declaration of predefined patterns. On the other hand, with your new proposal, it is much better.

Yeah but you could also use a "not matching" regexp for exactly this. Why do you assume that someone in general would be interested in this?

Yes it is possible but it will be longer if you want to have the number of lines that match and the number of lines that do not match because all the lines must pass through 2 matchers.

Alternatively, we could define a flag that generates a "remaining" metric output which sets a special value.

I don't understand

{ name = "default" }

I don't understand the purpose of this line.

You then can aggregate over the methods and count the patterns if you wish. What do you think?

Ok for an aggregator, but I admit I don't see which aggregator meets this use case? Unless you modify the valuecounter aggregator to work on tags.

[srebhan]

With the current operation, it is mandatory to go through the declaration of predefined patterns.

Can you elaborate on why this is necessary? You can simply put a regexp pattern in as grok pattern...

Alternatively, we could define a flag that generates a "remaining" metric output which sets a special value.

I don't understand

{ name = "default" }

I don't understand the purpose of this line.

The idea is to output a metric if none of the patterns match. Similar to the default clause of a switch statement.

[tguenneguez]

Can you elaborate on why this is necessary? You can simply put a regexp pattern in as grok pattern...

You are right.

The idea is to output a metric if none of the patterns match. Similar to the default clause of a switch statement.

You assume that a line cannot match multiple patterns... This is not necessarily true. We may want to count the number of requests with a 200 code and the number of requests in POST.

[tguenneguez]

@srebhan

The idea is to output a metric if none of the patterns match. Similar to the default clause of a switch statement.

You assume that a line cannot match multiple patterns... This is not necessarily true. We may want to count the number of requests with a 200 code and the number of requests in POST.

[tguenneguez]

There is something wrong in your sample :

[[inputs.file]]
  files = ["example"]
  data_format = "grok"
  grok_named_patterns = [ 
    { name = "2XX", pattern = " 2\d{2} " },
    { name = "3XX", pattern = " 3\d{2} " },
    { name = "4XX", pattern = ""%{WORD:method} %{PATH:path} HTTP/.?\..?" 4\d{2} " },
    { name = "5XX", pattern = ""%{WORD:method} %{PATH:path} HTTP/.?\..?" 5\d{2} " },
    { name = "default" }
 ]

I think that "grok_named patterns" shoud be "grok_named_patterns". But "grok_named_patterns" is already used in the plugin...

which should result in

file,pattern=2XX value=0i
file,pattern=2XX value=0i
file,pattern=5XX method="GET",path="/test.html" value=0i
file,pattern=4XX method="GET",path="/login"
file,pattern=2XX value=0i

I think "value" is the number of occured ?

The good result should be

file,pattern=2XX value=0i
file,pattern=2XX value=0i
file,pattern=5XX method="GET",path="/test.html",value=0i
file,pattern=4XX method="GET",path="/login",value=0i
file,pattern=2XX value=0i

But how to count lines with field method if there isn't ?