On 20/05/17 19:48, Merlijn Sebrechts wrote:
On May 20, 2017 09:05, "John Meinel" <j...@arbash-meinel.com
<mailto:j...@arbash-meinel.com>> wrote:
I would actually prefer if it shows up in 'juju status' but that we
suppress it from 'juju status-log' by default.
This is still very strange behavior. Why should this be default? Just
pipe the output of juju status through grep and exclude update-status if
that is really what you want.
However, I would even argue that this isn't what you want in most
use-cases. "update-status" isn't seen as a special hook in
charms.reactive. Anything can happen in that hook if the conditions are
right. Ignoring update-status will have unforeseen consequences...
Hmm... there are (at least) two problems here.
Firstly, update-status *should* be a special case hook, and it shouldn't
take long.
The purpose of the update-status hook was to provide a regular beat for
the charm to report on the workload status. Really it shouldn't be doing
other things.
The fact that it is a periodic execution rather than being executed in
response to model changes is the reason it isn't fitting so well into
the regular status and status history updates.
The changes to the workload status would still be shown in the history
of the workload status, and the workload status is shown in the status
output.
One way to limit the execution of the update-status hook call would be
to put a hard timeout on it enforced by the agent.
Thoughts?
--
Juju mailing list
Juju@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
