Thanks David for the feedback. Yes you are right. We can provide meaningful information in reason rather than provide it as "Ready". Message will have more detailed information . Also updated document on how to handle multiple conditions in status.
Thanks Lajith On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 4:00 PM David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Lajith, > This idea for a Flip is a good addition, which I support. > > As discussed: > > These conditions populate a status field in the K8s UI – Openshift in our > case. Currently the status does not contain any information. With the > conditions present, the status will be populated with meaningful > information on the UI; which means the readiness is explicitly shown on the > UI improving the users experience . > > One other observation, in your example : > > reason: Ready > > status: 'True' > > type: Ready > > > > Could reason be something more granular to give more information about > Ready status, maybe rolledback, deployed or stable? > > We also talked of whether there are any use cases would be beneficial, at > this time we don’t think so – but you said you have a look at this, > > Kind regards, David, > > > From: Lajith Koova <lajith...@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, 13 May 2024 at 10:29 > To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion: Condition field in the CR status > Thanks for the feedback Jeyhun. > > Regarding Will the usage of Conditions be enabled by default? Or will there > be any > disadvantages for Flink users . Yes the conditions will be enabled by > default for the CR. > > You are right , when there are multiple conditions of the same type, > approach is we will override the old condition with new conditions only if > conditions status and messages are the same. If they are different , we > will add to existing conditions. > > Thanks > Lajith > > On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:05 PM Jeyhun Karimov <je.kari...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Lajith, > > > > Thanks a lot for driving this FLIP. Please find my comments below: > > > > - I echo Gyula that including some examples and further explanations > might > > ease reader's work. With the current version, the FLIP is a bit hard to > > follow. > > > > - Will the usage of Conditions be enabled by default? Or will there be > any > > disadvantages for Flink users? > > > > If Conditions with the same type already exist in the Status Conditions > > > list, then replace the existing condition with the same type if the > > > Condition status and message are different. > > > > - Do you think we should have clear rules about handling rules for how > > these Conditions should be managed, especially when multiple Conditions > of > > the same type are present? > > For example, resource has multiple causes for the same condition (e.g., > > Error due to network and Error due to I/O). Then, overriding the old > > condition with the new one is not the best approach no? > > Please correct me if I misunderstood. > > > > Regards, > > Jeyhun > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:53 AM Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Lajith! > > > > > > Can you please include some examples in the document to help reviewers? > > > Just some examples with the status and the proposed conditions. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Gyula > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 9:06 AM Lajith Koova <lajith...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > Starting discussion thread here to discuss a proposal to add > Conditions > > > > field in the CR status of Flink Deployment and FlinkSessionJob. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the google doc with details. Please provide your > > thoughts/inputs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12wlJCL_Vq2KZnABzK7OR7gAd1jZMmo0MxgXQXqtWODs/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Lajith > > > > > > > > > > > Unless otherwise stated above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU >
