OTA-1224: status: simplify worker status line (2) #1918
Conversation
hongkailiu
force-pushed
the
OTA-1224-b
branch
from
a435ece
to
2f3e116
Compare
...admin/upgrade/status/examples/4.16.0-ec2-control-plane-updated-pdb-prohibits-draining.output
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ All control plane nodes successfully updated to 4.16.0-ec.3 | |||
| = Worker Upgrade = | |||
|
|
|||
| WORKER POOL ASSESSMENT COMPLETION STATUS | |||
| worker Degraded 37% (22/59) 44 Available, 5 Progressing, 12 Draining, 7 Degraded | |||
| worker Degraded 37% (22/59) 44 Available (23 Outdated), 15 Unavailable (Progressing 5), 5 Progressing, 12 Draining, 7 Degraded | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am wondering whether in the X Unavailable (Progressing Y), Z Progressing output the Y and Z values will always be equal and thus will render one of the references redundant. I would suppose a progressing node is also always unavailable, is it not?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unavailable is from MCO.
A node is unavailable if
- it has problems that need admins' attention. We had a card for the reason etc. My feeling is that an unavailable node in this case could be NOT progressing.
- MCO is updating the node. An unavailable node in this case should be progressing as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm.. definitely a lot of dilemmas on how to UX this right. moreover its pretty visible so "better be done right" 😉
honestly, X Unavailable (Progressing Y), Z Progressing looks a bit strange to my eyes.
ideally, those should be made as obvious for the many as possible (in which case either displaying too much or too little is an enemy). that unfortunately is more of a finding a middle-ground between different personal taste, than solving an actual technical challenge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tbh unavailable itself sounds a bit ambiguous, specifically because it can have either "the good" or "the bad" kind of unavailable. I wish my linguistical skill could provide a simple yet accurate word to name those two cases distinguishably..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Brainstorming outputs. I am not suggesting or recommending any of the outputs.
worker Degraded 37% (22/59) 44 Available (23 Outdated), 15 Unavailable (5 Progressing), 12 Draining, 7 Degraded
or
worker Degraded 37% (22/59) 44 Available (23 Outdated), 15 Unavailable, 5 Progressing, 12 Draining, 7 Degraded
tbh unavailable itself sounds a bit ambiguous, specifically because it can have either "the good" or "the bad" kind of unavailable.
Yes. That is the goal. Not that simple, hehe.
One extreme is having something like "15 are unavailable (5 of them are due to the update; this is normal; the other ones can be problematic)". The other one is having users take the total from the completion column, subtract available, and assuming users know that a progressing node is unavailable, and subtract that from the unavailable. A little bit complex.
For example, my first output tries to tie the progressing to the unavailable (there is a connection between them; 15 are unavailable, but 5 of them are progressing (but maybe it's not that clear?) - the current PR change), and removes the second reference of the progressing (as it is probably redundant IMO).
worker Degraded 37% (22/59) 44 Available (23 Outdated), 15 Unavailable (5 Progressing), 12 Draining, 7 Degraded
|
/retitle OTA-1224: status: simplify worker status line (2) So that we can see the PR in the Jira issue. I find it helpful. |
openshift-ci
bot
changed the title
|
@hongkailiu: This pull request references OTA-1224 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.18.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
hongkailiu
force-pushed
the
OTA-1224-b
branch
from
2f3e116
to
80145ea
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: hongkailiu The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
@hongkailiu: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
/cc @DavidHurta @petr-muller