Add Metrics for Running PipelinesRuns at Pipeline and Namespace level #8280

pramodbindal · 2024-09-19T06:23:22Z

Changes

Currently metrics shown for Running Pipeline Count is at cluster level.
There is no way we can get that metric at namespace or pipeline level.
We have added the PipelineRun metric at pipeline and namespace level.
Level of PipelineRun Can be configured via ConfigMap. Default is "" . but it can be set to namespace or Pipelinerun.

Submitter Checklist

As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:

Has Docs if any changes are user facing, including updates to minimum requirements e.g. Kubernetes version bumps
Has Tests included if any functionality added or changed
pre-commit Passed
Follows the commit message standard
Meets the Tekton contributor standards (including functionality, content, code)
Has a kind label. You can add one by adding a comment on this PR that contains /kind <type>. Valid types are bug, cleanup, design, documentation, feature, flake, misc, question, tep
Release notes block below has been updated with any user facing changes (API changes, bug fixes, changes requiring upgrade notices or deprecation warnings). See some examples of good release notes.
Release notes contains the string "action required" if the change requires additional action from users switching to the new release

Release Notes

NONE

tekton-robot · 2024-09-19T06:23:31Z

Hi @pramodbindal. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a tektoncd 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. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

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.

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/test-infra repository.

khrm

/ok-to-test

khrm · 2024-09-19T06:25:32Z

/kind feature

khrm · 2024-09-19T06:25:45Z

/test check-pr-has-kind-label

tekton-robot · 2024-09-19T06:25:48Z

@khrm: The specified target(s) for /test were not found.
The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-alpha-integration-tests
/test pull-tekton-pipeline-beta-integration-tests
/test pull-tekton-pipeline-build-tests
/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests
/test pull-tekton-pipeline-unit-tests

The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage

Use /test all to run all jobs.

In response to this:

/test check-pr-has-kind-label

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/test-infra repository.

tekton-robot · 2024-09-19T06:33:37Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	83.7%	-1.7

tekton-robot · 2024-09-19T06:35:11Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	83.7%	-1.7

tekton-robot · 2024-09-19T07:03:34Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	83.7%	-1.7

tekton-robot · 2024-09-19T07:05:23Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	83.7%	-1.7

pramodbindal · 2024-09-19T07:24:31Z

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-build-tests
/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests

vdemeester

@pramodbindal can you squash your commits ? Otherwise LGTM.

pramodbindal · 2024-09-19T08:51:12Z

@pramodbindal can you squash your commits ? Otherwise LGTM.

Done

tekton-robot · 2024-09-19T08:53:22Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	83.7%	-1.7

tekton-robot · 2024-09-19T08:56:56Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	83.7%	-1.7

vdemeester

We might want to add a release note entry
It seems it needs to be rebased ?

tekton-robot · 2024-09-25T08:20:09Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vdemeester

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [vdemeester]

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

pramodbindal · 2024-09-26T07:25:41Z

@pritidesai @abayer
This PR is Approved by @vdemeester .
Please provide /lgtm tag so I can merge this.

tekton-robot · 2024-09-26T11:14:49Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	83.7%	-1.7

tekton-robot · 2024-09-27T10:54:42Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	82.5%	-2.9

tekton-robot · 2024-09-27T11:40:23Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	82.5%	-2.9

tekton-robot · 2024-09-27T11:41:32Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	82.5%	-2.9

tekton-robot · 2024-09-27T12:52:01Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	81.8%	-3.6

tekton-robot · 2024-09-27T12:55:46Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	81.8%	-3.6

tekton-robot · 2024-09-27T12:57:01Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	81.8%	-3.6

afrittoli

Thanks for the updates. I left some more comments.

docs/metrics.md

pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go

tekton-robot · 2024-10-03T08:12:54Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	81.3%	-4.1

tekton-robot · 2024-10-03T08:14:25Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	81.3%	-4.1

tekton-robot · 2024-10-03T08:15:58Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	81.3%	-4.1

afrittoli

Thanks for the updates @pramodbindal.

I went deeper in the code and tests, and found out that the current code does not work because it never receives the requested configuration.

Once that's fixed, I suspect there may be further issues as we don't specify the key when recording the metric, but that needs to be verified and we need better test coverage.

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T09:14:54Z

docs/metrics.md

+| -- | ----------- |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+| metrics.taskrun.level | `taskrun` | Level of metrics is taskrun |
+| metrics.taskrun.level | `task` | Level of metrics is task and taskrun label isn't present in the metrics |
+| metrics.taskrun.level | `namespace` | Level of metrics is namespace, and task and taskrun label isn't present in the metrics 


NIT: ...and task and taskrun labels aren't present in the metrics

The plural is missing in a few more lines in the table, but that's something we can fix in a follow-up PR

This is PR is for Pipeline-Run only. there is no change in how TaskRun metrics are reported.

Yeah, I put the comment in the first line where this happens, but the same syntax error is in the pipelinerun lines too. As I said, it can be fixed separately

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T09:17:25Z

docs/metrics.md

+| metrics.pipelinerun.duration-type | `histogram` | `tekton_pipelines_controller_pipelinerun_duration_seconds` is of type histogram  |
+| metrics.pipelinerun.duration-type | `lastvalue` | `tekton_pipelines_controller_pipelinerun_duration_seconds` is of type gauge or lastvalue  |
+| metrics.count.enable-reason | `false` | Sets if the `reason` label should be included on count metrics  |
+| metrics.taskrun.throttle.enable-namespace | `false` | Sets if the `namespace` label should be included on the `tekton_pipelines_controller_running_taskruns_throttled_by_quota` metric  |


NIT: extra spaces at the end of each line before the | sign.

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T09:19:09Z

pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go

+ runningPRLevelPipelinerun = "pipelinerun"
+ runningPRLevelPipeline = "pipeline"
+ runningPRLevelNamespace = "namespace"
+ runningPRLevelBlank = ""


NIT: maybe runningPRLevelCluster?

pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T10:07:31Z

pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go

+ tag.Insert(namespaceTag, pr.Namespace),
+ tag.Insert(pipelineTag, pipelineName),
+ }
+ if r.cfg != nil {


The NewRecorder function uses config to initialise views in the viewRegister function, but it does not store config as part of the recorder itself. This means that r.cfg here is always going to be nil.

This results in having the views set up correctly but the counting being always at cluster level.
Existing testing is unfortunately insufficient to see the issue, as the test case only sets up a single running PR which does not allow for any aggregation or filtering to happen.

I tried the following change to the test:

for _, pipelineRun := range []*v1.PipelineRun{ newPipelineRun(corev1.ConditionTrue, "testns"), newPipelineRun(corev1.ConditionUnknown, "testns"), newPipelineRun(corev1.ConditionUnknown, "testns2"), newPipelineRun(corev1.ConditionFalse, "testns"), } { if err := informer.Informer().GetIndexer().Add(pipelineRun); err != nil { t.Fatalf("Adding TaskRun to informer: %v", err) } } ctx = getConfigContextRunningPRLevel("namespace") recorder, err := NewRecorder(ctx) if err != nil { t.Fatalf("NewRecorder: %v", err) } if err := recorder.RunningPipelineRuns(informer.Lister()); err != nil { t.Errorf("RunningPipelineRuns: %v", err) } metricstest.CheckLastValueData(t, "running_pipelineruns", map[string]string{"namespace": "testns"}, 1) metricstest.CheckLastValueData(t, "running_pipelineruns", map[string]string{"namespace": "testns2"}, 1)

which results in both pipelineruns being counted in each namespace:

/System/Volumes/Data/go/src/github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics_test.go:563: Reporter expected a different tag value for key metric running_pipelineruns key namespace got testns2 want testns /System/Volumes/Data/go/src/github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics_test.go:563: Reporter.Report() wrong value metric running_pipelineruns got 2 want 1 /System/Volumes/Data/go/src/github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics_test.go:564: Reporter.Report() wrong value metric running_pipelineruns got 2 want 1

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T10:25:30Z

pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go

+ // If all PipelineRuns for a Pipeline are completed then record it with 0
+ // set the key to 0 so that we do not record further completed PipelineRuns for same Pipeline


I think the comment is a bit misleading here, it's not always "PipelineRuns for a Pipeline" as it depends on the config.
In case there are no running PipelineRuns for the specific key, set the metric value to 0 to ensure the metric is set for the key.

// In case there are no running PipelineRuns for the pipelineRunKey, set the metric value to 0 to ensure the metric is set for the key.

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T10:27:17Z

pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go

 if !pr.IsDone() {
+ countMap[pipelineRunKey]++
+ metrics.Record(ctx_, runningPRs.M(float64(countMap[pipelineRunKey])))


The countMap is only complete at the end of the loop, so why is the metric reported here?

The metric might have different tags. For instance, in case we configure the metric to be at "namespace" level, it will have one counter for each namespace. How does the metric API know what tag value it is that we're counting here? Shouldn't we pass the pipelineRunKey somehow as well?

The metric might have different tags. For instance, in case we configure the metric to be at "namespace" level, it will have one counter for each namespace. How does the metric API know what tag value it is that we're counting here? Shouldn't we pass the pipelineRunKey somehow as well?

pipelineRunKey is generated on the basis of configuration if config is at namespace level then namespace is the key.

The countMap is only complete at the end of the loop, so why is the metric reported here?

There is no way of knowing if there is any more pipeline runs for same key.

Incase there are more metrics for same key then on next instance metric is reported with updated value and we are just considering the last value of the metric so same is updated accordingly.

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T10:27:25Z

pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go

+ // If all PipelineRuns for a Pipeline are completed then record it with 0
+ // set the key to 0 so that we do not record further completed PipelineRuns for same Pipeline
+ if _, exists := countMap[pipelineRunKey]; !exists {
+ countMap[pipelineRunKey] = 0


The countMap is only complete at the end of the loop, so why is the metric reported here?

same reason as above.
this code is reset the metric already reported.

lets assume we have 4 PRs running for a key at given point in time so metric is reported with 4.
in next call to function all PR are completed so they wont be reported in in block which mean their metric report will still be showing 4 on graph which is wrong data.

but resetting the value to 0 here solves the issues
if there is any running PR for the key then that will be handled by if block. if not then anyways we are setting to 0.

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T10:36:12Z

pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics_test.go

+ if err := recorder.RunningPipelineRuns(informer.Lister()); err != nil {
+ t.Errorf("RunningPipelineRuns: %v", err)
+ }
+ metricstest.CheckLastValueData(t, "running_pipelineruns", map[string]string{"namespace": "testns", "pipeline": "anonymous"}, 1)


The tags namespace and pipeline are set correctly, but the value 1 is only correct because the is only one running pipeline in the cluster. Adding more running pipelines, whether in the same namespace or others, causes the test to fail. This is because of the issue with the configuration highlighted in metrics.go.

I think it would be nice to have this as a matrix test which covers various possible scenarios, with configuration set and cluster, namespace, pipeline and pipelinerun level, and different initial inputs for each.

will it be ok if I provide those tests in new PR ?

afrittoli · 2024-10-08T12:37:00Z

/hold The logic to setup the key from config and to report the metrics needs to be fixed first, test coverage has to be extended

tekton-robot · 2024-10-09T09:41:31Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

tekton-robot · 2024-10-09T09:42:38Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

tekton-robot · 2024-10-10T08:56:50Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

tekton-robot · 2024-10-10T08:58:43Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

Currently metrics shown for Running Pipeline Count is at cluster level. We have added the PipelineRun metric at pipeline and namespace level. Fix Lint Error Fix Lint Error

tekton-robot · 2024-10-10T09:54:55Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

tekton-robot · 2024-10-10T09:55:32Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

tekton-robot · 2024-10-10T09:55:45Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

pramodbindal · 2024-10-10T10:12:36Z

/retest

tekton-robot · 2024-10-10T10:31:22Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

tekton-robot · 2024-10-10T11:02:28Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage-df to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/apis/config/metrics.go	76.2%	78.3%	2.1
pkg/pipelinerunmetrics/metrics.go	85.4%	84.0%	-1.4

tekton-robot added the release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesnt merit a release note. label Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot requested review from abayer and pritidesai September 19, 2024 06:23

tekton-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 19, 2024

khrm reviewed Sep 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

tekton-robot 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 Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Sep 19, 2024

vdemeester reviewed Sep 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

pramodbindal force-pushed the SRVKP-6184 branch from b802e66 to 6951973 Compare September 19, 2024 08:41

vdemeester approved these changes Sep 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 25, 2024

pramodbindal force-pushed the SRVKP-6184 branch 2 times, most recently from 5c2ef54 to 4a05727 Compare September 26, 2024 11:01

pramodbindal force-pushed the SRVKP-6184 branch from b0679b0 to 7891813 Compare September 27, 2024 11:28

pramodbindal force-pushed the SRVKP-6184 branch 2 times, most recently from d3be2f8 to a73f04d Compare September 27, 2024 12:43

afrittoli reviewed Sep 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

pramodbindal force-pushed the SRVKP-6184 branch 2 times, most recently from 863ebbd to d9c0b48 Compare October 3, 2024 08:03

afrittoli reviewed Oct 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

tekton-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Oct 8, 2024

Add Metrics for Running PipelinesRuns at Pipeline and Namespace level

d1757a6

Currently metrics shown for Running Pipeline Count is at cluster level. We have added the PipelineRun metric at pipeline and namespace level. Fix Lint Error Fix Lint Error

pramodbindal force-pushed the SRVKP-6184 branch from 785e2e6 to d1757a6 Compare October 10, 2024 10:19

		// If all PipelineRuns for a Pipeline are completed then record it with 0
		// set the key to 0 so that we do not record further completed PipelineRuns for same Pipeline

Add Metrics for Running PipelinesRuns at Pipeline and Namespace level #8280

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add Metrics for Running PipelinesRuns at Pipeline and Namespace level #8280

Conversation

pramodbindal commented Sep 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Changes

Submitter Checklist

Release Notes

tekton-robot commented Sep 19, 2024

khrm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

khrm commented Sep 19, 2024

khrm commented Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 19, 2024

pramodbindal commented Sep 19, 2024

vdemeester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pramodbindal commented Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 19, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 19, 2024

vdemeester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tekton-robot commented Sep 25, 2024

pramodbindal commented Sep 26, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 26, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 27, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 27, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 27, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 27, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 27, 2024

tekton-robot commented Sep 27, 2024

afrittoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tekton-robot commented Oct 3, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 3, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 3, 2024

afrittoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afrittoli commented Oct 8, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 9, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 9, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 10, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 10, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 10, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 10, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 10, 2024

pramodbindal commented Oct 10, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 10, 2024

tekton-robot commented Oct 10, 2024

pramodbindal commented Sep 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading