adding temp change for praveen testing purpose #36
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes introduce new classes and methods to enhance the functionality of the metrics management API. A new Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/metrics_control_service_rpc_handler.py (1)
8-11: Fix import statement spacingThe multiple empty lines between imports are inconsistent with PEP 8. Group related imports and separate them with a single blank line.
from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import DisableMetricsRequest - - from onelens_backend_client_v2.models import DisableMetricsResponse - -onelens_backend_client_v2/models.py (1)
4521-4534: Consider adding validation for node_ids listThe model is well-structured with proper typing and documentation. Consider adding validation to ensure node_ids list is not empty when provided.
node_ids: Optional[List[UUID4]] = Field( - None, description="The unique identifiers of the nodes", title="Node Ids" + None, + description="The unique identifiers of the nodes", + title="Node Ids", + min_items=1 )
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
onelens_backend_client_v2/models.py(3 hunks)onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/metrics_control_service_rpc_handler.py(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
onelens_backend_client_v2/rpc/metrics_control_service_rpc_handler.py (3)
46-109: LGTM! Implementation follows established patterns
The new disable_metric method is well-implemented with:
- Comprehensive type annotations and validation
- Proper error handling (200 and 422 responses)
- Thorough documentation
Line range hint 1-165: Clarify the scope and permanence of these changes
The PR title mentions this is for "testing purpose", but the implementation appears production-ready. Please clarify:
- Is this meant to be a temporary change?
- If temporary, should we add comments indicating this?
- If permanent, should we update the PR title to reflect this?
111-165: LGTM! Verify endpoint configuration
The serialization helper is well-implemented and follows the established pattern. Since this is for testing purposes (as per PR title), please verify that the endpoint /rpc/metrics_control_service/disable_metric is properly configured in the backend service.
onelens_backend_client_v2/models.py (1)
853-857: LGTM! Well-structured response model
The DisableMetricsResponse model is well-defined with proper typing and documentation.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Enhancements