2017-04-19 05:43:09 -07:00
|
|
|
// Copyright 2017 The Prometheus Authors
|
|
|
|
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
|
|
|
|
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
|
|
|
|
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
|
|
|
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
|
|
|
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
|
|
|
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
|
|
|
// limitations under the License.
|
|
|
|
|
2022-12-20 09:38:57 -08:00
|
|
|
//go:build !stringlabels
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
package labels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
|
|
"bytes"
|
2016-12-29 00:27:30 -08:00
|
|
|
"encoding/json"
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
"strconv"
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
"github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2"
|
2022-12-07 19:09:43 -08:00
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/common/model"
|
2023-03-06 10:22:49 -08:00
|
|
|
"golang.org/x/exp/slices"
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Well-known label names used by Prometheus components.
|
|
|
|
const (
|
2017-04-04 05:44:39 -07:00
|
|
|
MetricName = "__name__"
|
|
|
|
AlertName = "alertname"
|
|
|
|
BucketLabel = "le"
|
|
|
|
InstanceName = "instance"
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
labelSep = '\xfe'
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
var seps = []byte{'\xff'}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
// Label is a key/value pair of strings.
|
|
|
|
type Label struct {
|
|
|
|
Name, Value string
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Labels is a sorted set of labels. Order has to be guaranteed upon
|
|
|
|
// instantiation.
|
|
|
|
type Labels []Label
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Len() int { return len(ls) }
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Swap(i, j int) { ls[i], ls[j] = ls[j], ls[i] }
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Less(i, j int) bool { return ls[i].Name < ls[j].Name }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) String() string {
|
|
|
|
var b bytes.Buffer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte('{')
|
|
|
|
for i, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if i > 0 {
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(',')
|
2016-12-29 08:31:14 -08:00
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(' ')
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
b.WriteString(l.Name)
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte('=')
|
|
|
|
b.WriteString(strconv.Quote(l.Value))
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte('}')
|
|
|
|
return b.String()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
// Bytes returns ls as a byte slice.
|
|
|
|
// It uses an byte invalid character as a separator and so should not be used for printing.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Bytes(buf []byte) []byte {
|
|
|
|
b := bytes.NewBuffer(buf[:0])
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(labelSep)
|
|
|
|
for i, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if i > 0 {
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(seps[0])
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
b.WriteString(l.Name)
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(seps[0])
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
b.WriteString(l.Value)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return b.Bytes()
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-23 06:57:30 -07:00
|
|
|
// MarshalJSON implements json.Marshaler.
|
2016-12-29 00:27:30 -08:00
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) MarshalJSON() ([]byte, error) {
|
|
|
|
return json.Marshal(ls.Map())
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-23 06:57:30 -07:00
|
|
|
// UnmarshalJSON implements json.Unmarshaler.
|
2016-12-29 07:53:11 -08:00
|
|
|
func (ls *Labels) UnmarshalJSON(b []byte) error {
|
|
|
|
var m map[string]string
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if err := json.Unmarshal(b, &m); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*ls = FromMap(m)
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-03-08 08:29:25 -08:00
|
|
|
// MarshalYAML implements yaml.Marshaler.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) MarshalYAML() (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
return ls.Map(), nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// UnmarshalYAML implements yaml.Unmarshaler.
|
|
|
|
func (ls *Labels) UnmarshalYAML(unmarshal func(interface{}) error) error {
|
|
|
|
var m map[string]string
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if err := unmarshal(&m); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*ls = FromMap(m)
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-02-09 01:17:52 -08:00
|
|
|
// MatchLabels returns a subset of Labels that matches/does not match with the provided label names based on the 'on' boolean.
|
|
|
|
// If on is set to true, it returns the subset of labels that match with the provided label names and its inverse when 'on' is set to false.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) MatchLabels(on bool, names ...string) Labels {
|
|
|
|
matchedLabels := Labels{}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-05-20 01:18:31 -07:00
|
|
|
nameSet := make(map[string]struct{}, len(names))
|
2019-02-09 01:17:52 -08:00
|
|
|
for _, n := range names {
|
|
|
|
nameSet[n] = struct{}{}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for _, v := range ls {
|
2019-12-27 01:32:19 -08:00
|
|
|
if _, ok := nameSet[v.Name]; on == ok && (on || v.Name != MetricName) {
|
2019-02-09 01:17:52 -08:00
|
|
|
matchedLabels = append(matchedLabels, v)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return matchedLabels
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
// Hash returns a hash value for the label set.
|
2022-11-28 08:16:55 -08:00
|
|
|
// Note: the result is not guaranteed to be consistent across different runs of Prometheus.
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Hash() uint64 {
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
// Use xxhash.Sum64(b) for fast path as it's faster.
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
b := make([]byte, 0, 1024)
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
for i, v := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if len(b)+len(v.Name)+len(v.Value)+2 >= cap(b) {
|
|
|
|
// If labels entry is 1KB+ do not allocate whole entry.
|
|
|
|
h := xxhash.New()
|
|
|
|
_, _ = h.Write(b)
|
|
|
|
for _, v := range ls[i:] {
|
|
|
|
_, _ = h.WriteString(v.Name)
|
|
|
|
_, _ = h.Write(seps)
|
|
|
|
_, _ = h.WriteString(v.Value)
|
|
|
|
_, _ = h.Write(seps)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return h.Sum64()
|
|
|
|
}
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b = append(b, v.Name...)
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, seps[0])
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, v.Value...)
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, seps[0])
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return xxhash.Sum64(b)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-17 20:56:27 -07:00
|
|
|
// HashForLabels returns a hash value for the labels matching the provided names.
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
// 'names' have to be sorted in ascending order.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) HashForLabels(b []byte, names ...string) (uint64, []byte) {
|
|
|
|
b = b[:0]
|
|
|
|
i, j := 0, 0
|
|
|
|
for i < len(ls) && j < len(names) {
|
style: Replace `else if` cascades with `switch`
Wiser coders than myself have come to the conclusion that a `switch`
statement is almost always superior to a statement that includes any
`else if`.
The exceptions that I have found in our codebase are just these two:
* The `if else` is followed by an additional statement before the next
condition (separated by a `;`).
* The whole thing is within a `for` loop and `break` statements are
used. In this case, using `switch` would require tagging the `for`
loop, which probably tips the balance.
Why are `switch` statements more readable?
For one, fewer curly braces. But more importantly, the conditions all
have the same alignment, so the whole thing follows the natural flow
of going down a list of conditions. With `else if`, in contrast, all
conditions but the first are "hidden" behind `} else if `, harder to
spot and (for no good reason) presented differently from the first
condition.
I'm sure the aforemention wise coders can list even more reasons.
In any case, I like it so much that I have found myself recommending
it in code reviews. I would like to make it a habit in our code base,
without making it a hard requirement that we would test on the CI. But
for that, there has to be a role model, so this commit eliminates all
`if else` occurrences, unless it is autogenerated code or fits one of
the exceptions above.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
2023-04-12 07:14:31 -07:00
|
|
|
switch {
|
|
|
|
case names[j] < ls[i].Name:
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
j++
|
style: Replace `else if` cascades with `switch`
Wiser coders than myself have come to the conclusion that a `switch`
statement is almost always superior to a statement that includes any
`else if`.
The exceptions that I have found in our codebase are just these two:
* The `if else` is followed by an additional statement before the next
condition (separated by a `;`).
* The whole thing is within a `for` loop and `break` statements are
used. In this case, using `switch` would require tagging the `for`
loop, which probably tips the balance.
Why are `switch` statements more readable?
For one, fewer curly braces. But more importantly, the conditions all
have the same alignment, so the whole thing follows the natural flow
of going down a list of conditions. With `else if`, in contrast, all
conditions but the first are "hidden" behind `} else if `, harder to
spot and (for no good reason) presented differently from the first
condition.
I'm sure the aforemention wise coders can list even more reasons.
In any case, I like it so much that I have found myself recommending
it in code reviews. I would like to make it a habit in our code base,
without making it a hard requirement that we would test on the CI. But
for that, there has to be a role model, so this commit eliminates all
`if else` occurrences, unless it is autogenerated code or fits one of
the exceptions above.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
2023-04-12 07:14:31 -07:00
|
|
|
case ls[i].Name < names[j]:
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
i++
|
style: Replace `else if` cascades with `switch`
Wiser coders than myself have come to the conclusion that a `switch`
statement is almost always superior to a statement that includes any
`else if`.
The exceptions that I have found in our codebase are just these two:
* The `if else` is followed by an additional statement before the next
condition (separated by a `;`).
* The whole thing is within a `for` loop and `break` statements are
used. In this case, using `switch` would require tagging the `for`
loop, which probably tips the balance.
Why are `switch` statements more readable?
For one, fewer curly braces. But more importantly, the conditions all
have the same alignment, so the whole thing follows the natural flow
of going down a list of conditions. With `else if`, in contrast, all
conditions but the first are "hidden" behind `} else if `, harder to
spot and (for no good reason) presented differently from the first
condition.
I'm sure the aforemention wise coders can list even more reasons.
In any case, I like it so much that I have found myself recommending
it in code reviews. I would like to make it a habit in our code base,
without making it a hard requirement that we would test on the CI. But
for that, there has to be a role model, so this commit eliminates all
`if else` occurrences, unless it is autogenerated code or fits one of
the exceptions above.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
2023-04-12 07:14:31 -07:00
|
|
|
default:
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, ls[i].Name...)
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, seps[0])
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, ls[i].Value...)
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, seps[0])
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
i++
|
|
|
|
j++
|
2018-07-17 20:56:27 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
return xxhash.Sum64(b), b
|
2018-07-17 20:56:27 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// HashWithoutLabels returns a hash value for all labels except those matching
|
|
|
|
// the provided names.
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
// 'names' have to be sorted in ascending order.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) HashWithoutLabels(b []byte, names ...string) (uint64, []byte) {
|
|
|
|
b = b[:0]
|
|
|
|
j := 0
|
|
|
|
for i := range ls {
|
|
|
|
for j < len(names) && names[j] < ls[i].Name {
|
|
|
|
j++
|
2018-07-17 20:56:27 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
if ls[i].Name == MetricName || (j < len(names) && ls[i].Name == names[j]) {
|
|
|
|
continue
|
2018-07-17 20:56:27 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, ls[i].Name...)
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, seps[0])
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, ls[i].Value...)
|
2020-10-15 03:31:28 -07:00
|
|
|
b = append(b, seps[0])
|
2018-07-17 20:56:27 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2019-06-28 05:52:51 -07:00
|
|
|
return xxhash.Sum64(b), b
|
2018-07-17 20:56:27 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
// BytesWithLabels is just as Bytes(), but only for labels matching names.
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
// 'names' have to be sorted in ascending order.
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) BytesWithLabels(buf []byte, names ...string) []byte {
|
|
|
|
b := bytes.NewBuffer(buf[:0])
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(labelSep)
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
i, j := 0, 0
|
|
|
|
for i < len(ls) && j < len(names) {
|
style: Replace `else if` cascades with `switch`
Wiser coders than myself have come to the conclusion that a `switch`
statement is almost always superior to a statement that includes any
`else if`.
The exceptions that I have found in our codebase are just these two:
* The `if else` is followed by an additional statement before the next
condition (separated by a `;`).
* The whole thing is within a `for` loop and `break` statements are
used. In this case, using `switch` would require tagging the `for`
loop, which probably tips the balance.
Why are `switch` statements more readable?
For one, fewer curly braces. But more importantly, the conditions all
have the same alignment, so the whole thing follows the natural flow
of going down a list of conditions. With `else if`, in contrast, all
conditions but the first are "hidden" behind `} else if `, harder to
spot and (for no good reason) presented differently from the first
condition.
I'm sure the aforemention wise coders can list even more reasons.
In any case, I like it so much that I have found myself recommending
it in code reviews. I would like to make it a habit in our code base,
without making it a hard requirement that we would test on the CI. But
for that, there has to be a role model, so this commit eliminates all
`if else` occurrences, unless it is autogenerated code or fits one of
the exceptions above.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
2023-04-12 07:14:31 -07:00
|
|
|
switch {
|
|
|
|
case names[j] < ls[i].Name:
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
j++
|
style: Replace `else if` cascades with `switch`
Wiser coders than myself have come to the conclusion that a `switch`
statement is almost always superior to a statement that includes any
`else if`.
The exceptions that I have found in our codebase are just these two:
* The `if else` is followed by an additional statement before the next
condition (separated by a `;`).
* The whole thing is within a `for` loop and `break` statements are
used. In this case, using `switch` would require tagging the `for`
loop, which probably tips the balance.
Why are `switch` statements more readable?
For one, fewer curly braces. But more importantly, the conditions all
have the same alignment, so the whole thing follows the natural flow
of going down a list of conditions. With `else if`, in contrast, all
conditions but the first are "hidden" behind `} else if `, harder to
spot and (for no good reason) presented differently from the first
condition.
I'm sure the aforemention wise coders can list even more reasons.
In any case, I like it so much that I have found myself recommending
it in code reviews. I would like to make it a habit in our code base,
without making it a hard requirement that we would test on the CI. But
for that, there has to be a role model, so this commit eliminates all
`if else` occurrences, unless it is autogenerated code or fits one of
the exceptions above.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
2023-04-12 07:14:31 -07:00
|
|
|
case ls[i].Name < names[j]:
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
i++
|
style: Replace `else if` cascades with `switch`
Wiser coders than myself have come to the conclusion that a `switch`
statement is almost always superior to a statement that includes any
`else if`.
The exceptions that I have found in our codebase are just these two:
* The `if else` is followed by an additional statement before the next
condition (separated by a `;`).
* The whole thing is within a `for` loop and `break` statements are
used. In this case, using `switch` would require tagging the `for`
loop, which probably tips the balance.
Why are `switch` statements more readable?
For one, fewer curly braces. But more importantly, the conditions all
have the same alignment, so the whole thing follows the natural flow
of going down a list of conditions. With `else if`, in contrast, all
conditions but the first are "hidden" behind `} else if `, harder to
spot and (for no good reason) presented differently from the first
condition.
I'm sure the aforemention wise coders can list even more reasons.
In any case, I like it so much that I have found myself recommending
it in code reviews. I would like to make it a habit in our code base,
without making it a hard requirement that we would test on the CI. But
for that, there has to be a role model, so this commit eliminates all
`if else` occurrences, unless it is autogenerated code or fits one of
the exceptions above.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@grafana.com>
2023-04-12 07:14:31 -07:00
|
|
|
default:
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
if b.Len() > 1 {
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(seps[0])
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
b.WriteString(ls[i].Name)
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(seps[0])
|
|
|
|
b.WriteString(ls[i].Value)
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
i++
|
|
|
|
j++
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
return b.Bytes()
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
// BytesWithoutLabels is just as Bytes(), but only for labels not matching names.
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
// 'names' have to be sorted in ascending order.
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) BytesWithoutLabels(buf []byte, names ...string) []byte {
|
|
|
|
b := bytes.NewBuffer(buf[:0])
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(labelSep)
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
j := 0
|
|
|
|
for i := range ls {
|
|
|
|
for j < len(names) && names[j] < ls[i].Name {
|
|
|
|
j++
|
|
|
|
}
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
if j < len(names) && ls[i].Name == names[j] {
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
}
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
if b.Len() > 1 {
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(seps[0])
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
b.WriteString(ls[i].Name)
|
|
|
|
b.WriteByte(seps[0])
|
|
|
|
b.WriteString(ls[i].Value)
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
return b.Bytes()
|
2020-05-12 14:03:15 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-24 15:37:46 -08:00
|
|
|
// Copy returns a copy of the labels.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Copy() Labels {
|
|
|
|
res := make(Labels, len(ls))
|
|
|
|
copy(res, ls)
|
|
|
|
return res
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
// Get returns the value for the label with the given name.
|
|
|
|
// Returns an empty string if the label doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Get(name string) string {
|
|
|
|
for _, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if l.Name == name {
|
|
|
|
return l.Value
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-02-15 06:26:24 -08:00
|
|
|
// Has returns true if the label with the given name is present.
|
2018-02-14 09:03:58 -08:00
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Has(name string) bool {
|
|
|
|
for _, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if l.Name == name {
|
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-18 22:25:44 -08:00
|
|
|
// HasDuplicateLabelNames returns whether ls has duplicate label names.
|
2020-01-20 03:05:27 -08:00
|
|
|
// It assumes that the labelset is sorted.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) HasDuplicateLabelNames() (string, bool) {
|
|
|
|
for i, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if i == 0 {
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if l.Name == ls[i-1].Name {
|
|
|
|
return l.Name, true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return "", false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-11-18 11:53:33 -08:00
|
|
|
// WithoutEmpty returns the labelset without empty labels.
|
|
|
|
// May return the same labelset.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) WithoutEmpty() Labels {
|
|
|
|
for _, v := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if v.Value != "" {
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-10-13 00:57:53 -07:00
|
|
|
// Do not copy the slice until it's necessary.
|
2019-11-18 11:53:33 -08:00
|
|
|
els := make(Labels, 0, len(ls)-1)
|
|
|
|
for _, v := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if v.Value != "" {
|
|
|
|
els = append(els, v)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return els
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ls
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-12-07 19:09:43 -08:00
|
|
|
// IsValid checks if the metric name or label names are valid.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) IsValid() bool {
|
|
|
|
for _, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if l.Name == model.MetricNameLabel && !model.IsValidMetricName(model.LabelValue(l.Value)) {
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if !model.LabelName(l.Name).IsValid() || !model.LabelValue(l.Value).IsValid() {
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-24 15:37:46 -08:00
|
|
|
// Equal returns whether the two label sets are equal.
|
|
|
|
func Equal(ls, o Labels) bool {
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
if len(ls) != len(o) {
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for i, l := range ls {
|
2022-03-14 16:30:04 -07:00
|
|
|
if l != o[i] {
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Map returns a string map of the labels.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Map() map[string]string {
|
|
|
|
m := make(map[string]string, len(ls))
|
|
|
|
for _, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
m[l.Name] = l.Value
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return m
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-05-26 07:58:06 -07:00
|
|
|
// EmptyLabels returns n empty Labels value, for convenience.
|
|
|
|
func EmptyLabels() Labels {
|
|
|
|
return Labels{}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
// New returns a sorted Labels from the given labels.
|
|
|
|
// The caller has to guarantee that all label names are unique.
|
|
|
|
func New(ls ...Label) Labels {
|
|
|
|
set := make(Labels, 0, len(ls))
|
2022-12-13 10:14:58 -08:00
|
|
|
set = append(set, ls...)
|
2023-03-06 10:22:49 -08:00
|
|
|
slices.SortFunc(set, func(a, b Label) bool { return a.Name < b.Name })
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return set
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// FromMap returns new sorted Labels from the given map.
|
|
|
|
func FromMap(m map[string]string) Labels {
|
|
|
|
l := make([]Label, 0, len(m))
|
|
|
|
for k, v := range m {
|
|
|
|
l = append(l, Label{Name: k, Value: v})
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return New(l...)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// FromStrings creates new labels from pairs of strings.
|
|
|
|
func FromStrings(ss ...string) Labels {
|
|
|
|
if len(ss)%2 != 0 {
|
|
|
|
panic("invalid number of strings")
|
|
|
|
}
|
2022-05-25 07:22:47 -07:00
|
|
|
res := make(Labels, 0, len(ss)/2)
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
for i := 0; i < len(ss); i += 2 {
|
|
|
|
res = append(res, Label{Name: ss[i], Value: ss[i+1]})
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-03-06 10:22:49 -08:00
|
|
|
slices.SortFunc(res, func(a, b Label) bool { return a.Name < b.Name })
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
return res
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Compare compares the two label sets.
|
|
|
|
// The result will be 0 if a==b, <0 if a < b, and >0 if a > b.
|
|
|
|
func Compare(a, b Labels) int {
|
|
|
|
l := len(a)
|
|
|
|
if len(b) < l {
|
|
|
|
l = len(b)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for i := 0; i < l; i++ {
|
2020-01-01 07:45:01 -08:00
|
|
|
if a[i].Name != b[i].Name {
|
|
|
|
if a[i].Name < b[i].Name {
|
|
|
|
return -1
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-03-23 07:47:11 -07:00
|
|
|
return 1
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-01-01 07:45:01 -08:00
|
|
|
if a[i].Value != b[i].Value {
|
|
|
|
if a[i].Value < b[i].Value {
|
|
|
|
return -1
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-03-23 07:47:11 -07:00
|
|
|
return 1
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// If all labels so far were in common, the set with fewer labels comes first.
|
|
|
|
return len(a) - len(b)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-05-26 07:59:13 -07:00
|
|
|
// Copy labels from b on top of whatever was in ls previously, reusing memory or expanding if needed.
|
|
|
|
func (ls *Labels) CopyFrom(b Labels) {
|
|
|
|
(*ls) = append((*ls)[:0], b...)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// IsEmpty returns true if ls represents an empty set of labels.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) IsEmpty() bool {
|
|
|
|
return len(ls) == 0
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Range calls f on each label.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Range(f func(l Label)) {
|
|
|
|
for _, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
f(l)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Validate calls f on each label. If f returns a non-nil error, then it returns that error cancelling the iteration.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) Validate(f func(l Label) error) error {
|
|
|
|
for _, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
if err := f(l); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// InternStrings calls intern on every string value inside ls, replacing them with what it returns.
|
|
|
|
func (ls *Labels) InternStrings(intern func(string) string) {
|
|
|
|
for i, l := range *ls {
|
|
|
|
(*ls)[i].Name = intern(l.Name)
|
|
|
|
(*ls)[i].Value = intern(l.Value)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// ReleaseStrings calls release on every string value inside ls.
|
|
|
|
func (ls Labels) ReleaseStrings(release func(string)) {
|
|
|
|
for _, l := range ls {
|
|
|
|
release(l.Name)
|
|
|
|
release(l.Value)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-02-01 06:35:32 -08:00
|
|
|
// Builder allows modifying Labels.
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
type Builder struct {
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
base Labels
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
del []string
|
|
|
|
add []Label
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-13 03:19:17 -07:00
|
|
|
// NewBuilder returns a new LabelsBuilder.
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
func NewBuilder(base Labels) *Builder {
|
2019-08-13 03:19:17 -07:00
|
|
|
b := &Builder{
|
|
|
|
del: make([]string, 0, 5),
|
|
|
|
add: make([]Label, 0, 5),
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2019-08-13 03:19:17 -07:00
|
|
|
b.Reset(base)
|
|
|
|
return b
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-13 03:19:17 -07:00
|
|
|
// Reset clears all current state for the builder.
|
2019-06-11 01:24:50 -07:00
|
|
|
func (b *Builder) Reset(base Labels) {
|
|
|
|
b.base = base
|
|
|
|
b.del = b.del[:0]
|
|
|
|
b.add = b.add[:0]
|
2019-08-13 03:19:17 -07:00
|
|
|
for _, l := range b.base {
|
|
|
|
if l.Value == "" {
|
|
|
|
b.del = append(b.del, l.Name)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-06-11 01:24:50 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
// Del deletes the label of the given name.
|
|
|
|
func (b *Builder) Del(ns ...string) *Builder {
|
|
|
|
for _, n := range ns {
|
|
|
|
for i, a := range b.add {
|
|
|
|
if a.Name == n {
|
|
|
|
b.add = append(b.add[:i], b.add[i+1:]...)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
b.del = append(b.del, n)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return b
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
// Keep removes all labels from the base except those with the given names.
|
|
|
|
func (b *Builder) Keep(ns ...string) *Builder {
|
|
|
|
Outer:
|
|
|
|
for _, l := range b.base {
|
|
|
|
for _, n := range ns {
|
|
|
|
if l.Name == n {
|
|
|
|
continue Outer
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
b.del = append(b.del, l.Name)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return b
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-12-13 11:02:25 -08:00
|
|
|
// Set the name/value pair as a label. A value of "" means delete that label.
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
func (b *Builder) Set(n, v string) *Builder {
|
2019-08-13 03:19:17 -07:00
|
|
|
if v == "" {
|
|
|
|
// Empty labels are the same as missing labels.
|
|
|
|
return b.Del(n)
|
|
|
|
}
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
for i, a := range b.add {
|
|
|
|
if a.Name == n {
|
|
|
|
b.add[i].Value = v
|
|
|
|
return b
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
b.add = append(b.add, Label{Name: n, Value: v})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return b
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-02-28 10:10:21 -08:00
|
|
|
func (b *Builder) Get(n string) string {
|
2023-05-03 03:59:27 -07:00
|
|
|
// Del() removes entries from .add but Set() does not remove from .del, so check .add first.
|
2023-02-28 10:10:21 -08:00
|
|
|
for _, a := range b.add {
|
|
|
|
if a.Name == n {
|
|
|
|
return a.Value
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2023-05-03 03:59:27 -07:00
|
|
|
if slices.Contains(b.del, n) {
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
2023-02-28 10:10:21 -08:00
|
|
|
return b.base.Get(n)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Range calls f on each label in the Builder.
|
|
|
|
func (b *Builder) Range(f func(l Label)) {
|
2023-03-16 06:28:13 -07:00
|
|
|
// Stack-based arrays to avoid heap allocation in most cases.
|
2023-03-22 10:11:24 -07:00
|
|
|
var addStack [128]Label
|
|
|
|
var delStack [128]string
|
2023-03-16 06:28:13 -07:00
|
|
|
// Take a copy of add and del, so they are unaffected by calls to Set() or Del().
|
|
|
|
origAdd, origDel := append(addStack[:0], b.add...), append(delStack[:0], b.del...)
|
2023-02-28 10:10:21 -08:00
|
|
|
b.base.Range(func(l Label) {
|
|
|
|
if !slices.Contains(origDel, l.Name) && !contains(origAdd, l.Name) {
|
|
|
|
f(l)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
for _, a := range origAdd {
|
|
|
|
f(a)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func contains(s []Label, n string) bool {
|
|
|
|
for _, a := range s {
|
|
|
|
if a.Name == n {
|
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-03-22 08:46:02 -07:00
|
|
|
// Labels returns the labels from the builder.
|
2022-08-19 02:57:52 -07:00
|
|
|
// If no modifications were made, the original labels are returned.
|
2023-03-22 08:46:02 -07:00
|
|
|
func (b *Builder) Labels() Labels {
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
if len(b.del) == 0 && len(b.add) == 0 {
|
|
|
|
return b.base
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-04-02 03:17:05 -07:00
|
|
|
expectedSize := len(b.base) + len(b.add) - len(b.del)
|
|
|
|
if expectedSize < 1 {
|
|
|
|
expectedSize = 1
|
2022-08-19 02:57:52 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2023-04-02 03:17:05 -07:00
|
|
|
res := make(Labels, 0, expectedSize)
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
for _, l := range b.base {
|
2023-02-28 10:10:21 -08:00
|
|
|
if slices.Contains(b.del, l.Name) || contains(b.add, l.Name) {
|
|
|
|
continue
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
res = append(res, l)
|
|
|
|
}
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
if len(b.add) > 0 { // Base is already in order, so we only need to sort if we add to it.
|
|
|
|
res = append(res, b.add...)
|
2023-03-06 10:22:49 -08:00
|
|
|
slices.SortFunc(res, func(a, b Label) bool { return a.Name < b.Name })
|
2022-06-06 21:38:27 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
2016-12-24 05:35:24 -08:00
|
|
|
return res
|
2016-12-24 05:01:10 -08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2022-05-26 07:59:13 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// ScratchBuilder allows efficient construction of a Labels from scratch.
|
|
|
|
type ScratchBuilder struct {
|
|
|
|
add Labels
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// NewScratchBuilder creates a ScratchBuilder initialized for Labels with n entries.
|
|
|
|
func NewScratchBuilder(n int) ScratchBuilder {
|
|
|
|
return ScratchBuilder{add: make([]Label, 0, n)}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (b *ScratchBuilder) Reset() {
|
|
|
|
b.add = b.add[:0]
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Add a name/value pair.
|
|
|
|
// Note if you Add the same name twice you will get a duplicate label, which is invalid.
|
|
|
|
func (b *ScratchBuilder) Add(name, value string) {
|
|
|
|
b.add = append(b.add, Label{Name: name, Value: value})
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Sort the labels added so far by name.
|
|
|
|
func (b *ScratchBuilder) Sort() {
|
2023-03-06 10:22:49 -08:00
|
|
|
slices.SortFunc(b.add, func(a, b Label) bool { return a.Name < b.Name })
|
2022-05-26 07:59:13 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-04-24 23:19:16 -07:00
|
|
|
// Assign is for when you already have a Labels which you want this ScratchBuilder to return.
|
2022-12-15 10:19:15 -08:00
|
|
|
func (b *ScratchBuilder) Assign(ls Labels) {
|
|
|
|
b.add = append(b.add[:0], ls...) // Copy on top of our slice, so we don't retain the input slice.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2022-05-26 07:59:13 -07:00
|
|
|
// Return the name/value pairs added so far as a Labels object.
|
|
|
|
// Note: if you want them sorted, call Sort() first.
|
|
|
|
func (b *ScratchBuilder) Labels() Labels {
|
|
|
|
// Copy the slice, so the next use of ScratchBuilder doesn't overwrite.
|
|
|
|
return append([]Label{}, b.add...)
|
|
|
|
}
|
2023-04-13 04:07:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Write the newly-built Labels out to ls.
|
|
|
|
// Callers must ensure that there are no other references to ls, or any strings fetched from it.
|
|
|
|
func (b *ScratchBuilder) Overwrite(ls *Labels) {
|
|
|
|
*ls = append((*ls)[:0], b.add...)
|
|
|
|
}
|