Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs(sdk-metrics): Update Histogram docs to reflect upper bound inclusivity #4829

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 22, 2024

Conversation

danielpatrickdotdev
Copy link
Contributor

Which problem is this PR solving?

According to the specs, histogram bucket upper bounds are inclusive. This PR contains a very small change to the docs to reflect that. This might avoid confusing a newcomer to the project.

Fixes # N/A

Short description of the changes

Type of change

Docs only

How Has This Been Tested?

N/A

Checklist:

  • [Y] Followed the style guidelines of this project
  • [N/A] Unit tests have been added
  • [Y] Documentation has been updated

@danielpatrickdotdev danielpatrickdotdev requested a review from a team June 27, 2024 14:43
Copy link

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Jun 27, 2024

CLA Signed

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

  • ✅ login: danielpatrickdotdev / name: Daniel (f3169c8)
  • ✅ login: hectorhdzg / name: Hector Hernandez (da4f828)

@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ export interface Histogram {
*
* buckets: {
* boundaries: [10, 20, 30],
* counts: [3, 3, 1, 2],
* counts: [3, 3, 2, 1],
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be good to mention what spec describe here in the notes maybe, so is clear why the counts are like that. "buckets express the number of values that are greater than their lower bound and less than or equal to their upper bound."

Copy link
Member

@hectorhdzg hectorhdzg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@pichlermarc
Copy link
Member

@legendecas I think we discussed in the SIG meeting that this is not the case yet and that we'd change the code to be upper-bound inclusive, right?

@legendecas
Copy link
Member

Yes, I fixed up a PR based on this one at #4935.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants