Skip to content

docs(observability): document server.observability.usage_audit in config hierarchy#2473

Open
r266-tech wants to merge 2 commits into
volcengine:mainfrom
r266-tech:docs-observability-usage-audit-2442
Open

docs(observability): document server.observability.usage_audit in config hierarchy#2473
r266-tech wants to merge 2 commits into
volcengine:mainfrom
r266-tech:docs-observability-usage-audit-2442

Conversation

@r266-tech

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The Observability config hierarchy section lists server.observability.{metrics,traces,logs,dump_body} but omits server.observability.usage_audit, even though it is a real wired subkey of ObservabilityConfig.

Source-grounded in openviking/server/config.py:

  • class UsageAuditConfig (L89): enabled: bool = True (L92), backend: Literal["sqlite"] = "sqlite" (L93), sqlite_path: Optional[str] = None (L94), timezone: str = "local" (L102)
  • wired via class ObservabilityConfigusage_audit: UsageAuditConfig = Field(default_factory=UsageAuditConfig) (L126)

This gap became conspicuous after #2442: the multi-instance deployment notes (03-deployment.md) now direct operators to set server.observability.usage_audit.sqlite_path for per-instance paths, but the observability config hierarchy — the canonical place that enumerates the server.observability.* subkeys — does not list usage_audit at all, so an operator cannot discover enabled/sqlite_path/timezone from the hierarchy.

Adds the missing usage_audit bullet + an entry in the config example, matching the existing dump_body documentation style (#2063). EN + ZH mirrored.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

🎫 Ticket compliance analysis ✅

2442 - Fully compliant

Compliant requirements:

  • Add server.observability.usage_audit to the observability config hierarchy in docs
  • Update both English and Chinese documentation
  • Include usage_audit in the config example
  • Match existing documentation style
⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 1 🔵⚪⚪⚪⚪
🏅 Score: 100
🧪 No relevant tests
🔒 No security concerns identified
✅ No TODO sections
🔀 No multiple PR themes
⚡ No major issues detected

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

PR Code Suggestions ✨

No code suggestions found for the PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Status: Backlog

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant