Per-app drill-down rows in Grafana #428
Labels
No labels
domain:backend
domain:devops
domain:frontend
status:approved
status:in-progress
status:needs-fix
status:qa
type:bug
type:devops
type:feature
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
ldraney/pal-e-platform#428
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Type
Feature
Lineage
Migrated from ldraney/DORA#3.
Standalone — part of DORA dashboard improvements.
Repo
ldraney/pal-e-platformUser Story
As a platform operator
I want one Grafana row per Tier 1 repo with DF/LT/CFR/MTTR
So that I can identify which app is dragging a metric down
Context
The current dashboard shows per-repo data only via the
$repodropdown — you can only see one repo at a time. Dedicated collapsible rows per Tier 1 repo give at-a-glance health without toggling.File Targets
Files the agent should modify or create:
terraform/dashboards/dora-dashboard.json— add collapsible rowsFeature Flag
None required — collapsible rows are additive UI elements.
Acceptance Criteria
Test Expectations
Constraints
Checklist
Related
dora-metrics— project this affectsIssue #428 Template Review
TEMPLATE CONFORMANCE
### Typepresent and valid (Feature)### Lineagepresent and non-empty### Repopresent and correct (ldraney/pal-e-platform)### User Storypresent with As/I want/So that structure### Contextpresent and explains the problem (single-repo dropdown limitation)### File Targetspresent with specific path### Feature Flagpresent ("None required" -- reasonable for additive UI)### Acceptance Criteriapresent with concrete items### Test Expectationspresent (manual verification -- appropriate for dashboard JSON)### Constraintspresent (dashboard JSON size concern)### Checklistitems missing- [ ]checkbox format (nit)### RelatedpresentAll required sections present and non-empty. Template is conformant.
CONTENT QUALITY
File Targets -- VERIFIED.
terraform/dashboards/dora-dashboard.jsonexists and currently has 13 panels across 5 rows (none collapsible). The$repotemplate variable exists and pulls repos dynamically from Prometheus vialabel_values(dora_pr_merges_total, repo). The target path is real and the described work is additive.Acceptance Criteria -- adequate but could be tighter. The five repos are named explicitly (pal-e-platform, pal-e-services, pal-e-deployments, pal-e-docs, basketball-api). "Rows collapsed by default" is clear. Missing: what datasource/queries each panel uses. However, since the
$repovariable already exists as a pattern, the agent has enough signal to scope the work.User Story -- well-framed. The pain point (toggling a dropdown to compare repos) and the solution (collapsible rows for at-a-glance comparison) are clear.
Scope -- single deployable unit. One file, additive changes (new row panels appended to the panels array). No infra, no migrations, no multi-repo coordination. Good.
DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS
Soft dependency on #427 (tier variable). Issue #427 adds a
$tiervariable to filter repos by tier. If #427 merges first, the per-app rows in #428 should respect that filter. If #428 merges first, the rows will show all repos regardless of tier. Neither ordering is broken, but the agent implementing #428 should be aware that a tier filter may exist by then. Not a blocker -- the issues are independent enough to execute in either order, but the PR for whichever lands second will need to account for the other's changes.Merge conflict risk with #429, #430, and PR #396. All four issues (#427-430) plus the existing open PR #396 target the same
dora-dashboard.jsonfile. Whichever merges first will cause merge conflicts for the rest. This is manageable (JSON diffs are straightforward) but the executing agent should rebase against main before opening the PR.#395 vs #429/#430 overlap. Issue #395 ("band color thresholds + rolling trend panels") appears to cover the same scope as #429 + #430. PR #396 is open for #395. Clarify whether #395 is superseded by the split issues or still active -- if both #395 and #429/#430 proceed, the work will be duplicated.
BLOCKERS
None.
NITS
- [ ]checkbox syntax per template convention. Currently plain text bullets.VERDICT: APPROVED
Issue #428 is board-ready. Template is complete, file target is verified, scope is a clean single-file additive change. The soft dependency on #427 and merge conflict risk with siblings are noted but not blocking -- standard coordination for a batch of related dashboard improvements.