change: relax kube_.+_created to allow namespaces

[rexagod]

Signed-off-by: Pranshu Srivastava [email protected]

Description

Describe the big picture of your changes here to communicate to the maintainers why we should accept this pull request. If it fixes a bug or resolves a feature request, be sure to link to that issue.

KSM v2.16 introduced look around support for regexes (https://github.com/kubernetes/kube-state-metrics/pull/2616), and since namespaces are an extremely common native resource, it might make sense to have their creation metrics OOTB for downstream consumers.

Type of change

What type of changes does your code introduce to the kube-prometheus? Put an x in the box that apply.

• [X] CHANGE (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• [ ] FEATURE (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] BUGFIX (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [ ] ENHANCEMENT (non-breaking change which improves existing functionality)
• [ ] NONE (if none of the other choices apply. Example, tooling, build system, CI, docs, etc.)

Changelog entry

Please put a one-line changelog entry below. Later this will be copied to the changelog file.

Replaces the `^kube_.+_created$` in KSM's metrics deny-list with `^kube_(?=namespace).*_created$` to allow generating namespace creation metrics.

---

generate-versions.sh seems to return null for KSM, but I can update versions.json if needed.

[rexagod]

Do we maintain any stability guarantees (or backward-compatibilities) for the deny-list? I've assumed that the deny-list, with adequate reason, is subject to change based on observations seen over prolonged periods, but I'm happy to do this in a safer manner (say, in a separate ksm-lite-v216, for example) to maintain stability.

[rexagod]

If this still seems odd, I'll try to put together a more makeshift solution downstream and close this out.

[simonpasquier]

I suspect that cluster-monitoring-operator is the only downstream user for his addon. I'm not sure that it's worth keeping it in this repository given that it's not documented and it provides no configuration option. If we want to keep it here, I'd advocate for 1) adding arguments to customize the deny list and 2) minimal documentation.

WDYT @slashpai @philipgough?

[philipgough]

@simonpasquier yep, agree that makes sense

[rexagod]

Not sure why the test expects kubePrometheus to be present in the resulting object?

[rexagod]

Tests seem to pass on my fork: https://github.com/rexagod/kube-prometheus/actions/runs/16932879487 for the same commit.

Triggering a retest.

[rexagod]

cc @simonpasquier for a review 🙇

[rexagod]

Ping @simonpasquier for a look here 🙂

[simonpasquier]

Thanks! https://github.com/prometheus-operator/kube-prometheus/pull/2684#discussion_r2236955741 is still valid.

[rexagod]

So just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, do you mean instead of ksmConfig this should use values (from the example above) so it can be integrated into the values-based model used in CMO?