You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The cause: internal aggregation of metrics in the extension is happening by names of metrics and doesn't take labels into account. Ideally, this should be resolved by grafana/k6#1831. However, that issue may take quite a lot of time to resolve fully, so it'd be good if a quicker solution can be added here first. E.g. once some design solutions proposed to grafana/k6#1831, it might make sense to evaluate them here, in the extension first.
Currently considered blocked by grafana/k6#1831 and should be re-visited upon progress there.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We've noticed trend metrics for requests with labels (name label in particular) are not correct. When grouping by the name label (request) the trend metrics are all the same for each name label value. Would this issue be why that is the case?
Hi @mschenk42, yes, it is the same issue. Hopefully, we will get fixed in the next releases, we are actively working on the main issue.
In the meanwhile, you could consider to workaround creating custom metrics per endpoint, you probably need to tune the System Tags so k6 doesn't generate too much time series.
Described in community forum: https://community.k6.io/t/counters-not-starting-from-zero/2737
Both actual and expected behavior are included in the above description.
The cause: internal aggregation of metrics in the extension is happening by names of metrics and doesn't take labels into account. Ideally, this should be resolved by grafana/k6#1831. However, that issue may take quite a lot of time to resolve fully, so it'd be good if a quicker solution can be added here first. E.g. once some design solutions proposed to grafana/k6#1831, it might make sense to evaluate them here, in the extension first.
Currently considered blocked by grafana/k6#1831 and should be re-visited upon progress there.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: