Note added regarding collector dependency for 'drop' filter

[bitgully]

Version(s): 4.13+

Issue: The documentation regarding the 'drop' content filter is missing the note that it is supported only by the 'Vector' log collector and not by 'Fluentd'.

Link to docs preview: https://github.com/bitgully/openshift-docs/blob/main/modules/logging-content-filter-drop-records.adoc

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

[openshift-ci]

Hi @bitgully. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a openshift 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-sigs/prow repository.

[libander]

Hi @bitgully thanks for taking the time to open a PR. Technically this feature was introduced in 5.9, in which fluentd is deprecated; but there doesn't appear to be an easy way anyone would know that. I'm going to suggest the addition of the logging version 5.9 as a pre-req, otherwise looks good.

[libander]

/label ok-to-test

[openshift-ci]

@libander: The label(s) /label ok-to-test cannot be applied. These labels are supported: acknowledge-critical-fixes-only, platform/aws, platform/azure, platform/baremetal, platform/google, platform/libvirt, platform/openstack, ga, tide/merge-method-merge, tide/merge-method-rebase, tide/merge-method-squash, px-approved, docs-approved, qe-approved, no-qe, downstream-change-needed, rebase/manual, cluster-config-api-changed, approved, backport-risk-assessed, bugzilla/valid-bug, cherry-pick-approved, cloud-experts, cnv, dev-tools, distributed-tracing, ims, jira/valid-bug, merge-review-in-progress, merge-review-needed, mtc, multi-arch, oadp, peer-review-done, peer-review-in-progress, peer-review-needed, rhacs, rhv, sd-docs, serverless, service-mesh, sme-review-done, sme-review-needed, staff-eng-approved, telco. Is this label configured under labels -> additional_labels or labels -> restricted_labels in plugin.yaml?

In response to this:

/label ok-to-test

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.

[libander]

@anpingli / @kabirbhartiRH / @QiaolingTang - QE review, please.

[QiaolingTang]

LGTM.

[openshift-ci]

@libander: The label(s) /label qe-review-done cannot be applied. These labels are supported: acknowledge-critical-fixes-only, platform/aws, platform/azure, platform/baremetal, platform/google, platform/libvirt, platform/openstack, ga, tide/merge-method-merge, tide/merge-method-rebase, tide/merge-method-squash, px-approved, docs-approved, qe-approved, no-qe, downstream-change-needed, rebase/manual, cluster-config-api-changed, approved, backport-risk-assessed, bugzilla/valid-bug, cherry-pick-approved, cloud-experts, cnv, dev-tools, distributed-tracing, ims, jira/valid-bug, merge-review-in-progress, merge-review-needed, mtc, multi-arch, oadp, peer-review-done, peer-review-in-progress, peer-review-needed, rhacs, rhv, sd-docs, serverless, service-mesh, sme-review-done, sme-review-needed, staff-eng-approved, telco. Is this label configured under labels -> additional_labels or labels -> restricted_labels in plugin.yaml?

In response to this:

/label qe-review-done

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.

[libander]

/label qe-approved

[openshift-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

[bitgully]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[bitgully]

Thanks @libander for your review. I suppose your addition makes sense. Do you think, we can take this further now and get it merged?

[openshift-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

[bitgully]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[bitgully]

@libander Should we get this merged?

[openshift-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

[openshift-bot]

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

[openshift-bot]

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.

Reopen the issue by commenting /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Exclude this issue from closing again by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

/close

[openshift-ci]

@openshift-bot: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.

Reopen the issue by commenting /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Exclude this issue from closing again by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

/close

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.