Fix CSV provider lookup precedence does not seem correct

[aorjoa]

What does this PR change?

• This MR is to change some precedence of the CSV provider processing step then OpenCost can get more precisely pricing what it should be.

Does this PR relate to any other PRs?

• N/A

How will this PR impact users?

• Pricing that import from CSV file should get more precise pricing.

Does this PR address any GitHub or Zendesk issues?

• N/A

How was this PR tested?

1. Create CSV file for testing purpose fix-csv-file.csv and add this to the content.

EndTimestamp,InstanceID,Region,AssetClass,InstanceIDField,InstanceType,MarketPriceHourly,Version
2023-07-24 16:00:00 UTC,anuchito-1,us-east-1,node,metadata.labels.instance-group,c5.4xlarge,0.2591,
2023-07-24 16:00:00 UTC,aorjoa-1,us-east-1,node,metadata.labels.instance-group,c5.4xlarge,0.60000,
2023-07-24 16:00:00 UTC,aorjoa-1,ap-southeast-1,node,metadata.labels.instance-group,c5.4xlarge,0.90000,

and don't forget to config environment variable

USE_CSV_PROVIDER=true
CSV_PATH=<test-csv-file.csv>

2. if you're on local machine then mock the AWS instance with this additional label

instance-group: aorjoa-1
node.kubernetes.io/instance-type: c5.4xlarge
topology.kubernetes.io/region: us-east-1

3. the expected pricing should be 0.60000 due to it match with metadata.labels.instance-group=aorjoa-1. Unfortunately, the current situation is that we got 0.2591.
4. You can try with other K8s node information if needed.

Does this PR require changes to documentation?

• No document is required due to it is internal behavior change.

Have you labeled this PR and its corresponding Issue as "next release" if it should be part of the next OpenCost release? If not, why not?

• Not yet, because I not quite sure about testing process of the OpenCost and how long it take.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
opencost	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Feb 6, 2024 6:22pm

[mattray]

@aorjoa thanks for the PR! We definitely appreciate the effort (and tests!) and I'll raise it with Kubecost Engineering. If anyone else sees this and wants to test and review it, that will help accelerate getting it merged.

[aorjoa]

Hi @AjayTripathy, IDK why the Quality Gate was failed but I just update the branch with develop.

[AjayTripathy]

@aorjoa I have a question on one of your tests-- mind taking another look?

[aorjoa]

@aorjoa I have a question on one of your tests-- mind taking another look?

I happy to take a look 👀 please give me some more context @AjayTripathy.

[AjayTripathy]

@aorjoa I have a question on one of your tests-- mind taking another look?

I happy to take a look 👀 please give me some more context @AjayTripathy.

whoops forgot to hit submit on the review question. should be added as a comment now: #2310 (comment)

[aorjoa]

Hi @AjayTripathy. I just follow up this MR, if this need any further action please let me know. 😄

[AjayTripathy]

@aorjoa sorry for the late response during holidays. @nik-kc looked at this as well and I believe had some thoughts. We'll get this in after the holidays though.

[aorjoa]

Thanks you in advance guys ⛳️, Happy holidays 🏖️

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

The SonarCloud Quality Gate passed, but some issues were introduced.

2 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
25.7% Coverage on New Code
2.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[aorjoa]

Hi @nik-kc, hope you are doing well. I just want to follow this up if anything I can help with it please let me know.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity. Please remove the stale label or comment or this pull request will be closed in 5 days.

[mattray]

@nik-kc or @AjayTripathy do you want this kept open?