Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix sanity not starting missing instances #1053

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 17, 2024
Merged

Conversation

reidsunderland
Copy link
Member

We had a group debugging session and fixed this issue.

Copy link

Test Results

220 tests   212 ✅  16s ⏱️
  1 suites    8 💤
  1 files      0 ❌

Results for commit 568a822.

Copy link
Contributor

@petersilva petersilva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will save the government thousands of dollars... because the failure to detect was causing pager calls.

@reidsunderland reidsunderland merged commit 9390b81 into development May 17, 2024
30 of 35 checks passed
@petersilva
Copy link
Contributor

Please Note: We need to document the change in behaviour... with this patch, sr3 sanity will not longer start up "stopped" configs... only "missing" ones. That's what we decided was least astonishing... but it is still a change from how it worked before.

@reidsunderland reidsunderland deleted the issue_927 branch May 17, 2024 16:24
@petersilva
Copy link
Contributor

close #927

@reidsunderland
Copy link
Member Author

I think the documentation always said what it was supposed to do. "sanity: looks for instances which have crashed or gotten stuck and restarts them." https://metpx.github.io/sarracenia/Reference/sr3.1.html

@reidsunderland
Copy link
Member Author

I grepped for sanity and couldn't find anywhere (in English) that said it started stopped instances, only crashed or stuck instances.

@petersilva
Copy link
Contributor

I updated HOWTO/UPGRADING.rst ... to indicate the change in behaviour. same in french ... committed direct to development.
yeah... I old behaviour was a mistake in the first place, but one with seniority.

petersilva pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants