Add health checks again#1685
Conversation
Yavor16
force-pushed
the
add-readiness-healthcheck
branch
from
c459828 to
d50f79c
Compare
| .type("web") | ||
| .uptime(9042L) | ||
| .fileDescriptorQuota(1024L) | ||
| .routable(routable) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why value is not boolean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because in the ProcessStatisticsResource class the routable variable is String
theghost5800
left a comment
theghost5800
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Squash before merge
| private boolean isThereAtLeastOneRoutedInstance(List<InstanceInfo> instanceInfos) { | ||
| return instanceInfos.stream() | ||
| .anyMatch(InstanceInfo::isRoutable); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We will be checking if there is at least one routeable instance? Compared to current approach with the started state, we wait for all instances. This is inconsistency, is it deliberately this way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, if there is defined readiness health check type, we will wait for one instance to be routable instead of all of them. If there isn't readiness health check type defined, we will work like we do now
| Integer readinessHealthCheckInvocationTimeout = null; | ||
| String readinessHealthCheckHttpEndpoint = null; | ||
| Integer readinessHealthCheckInterval = null; | ||
| if (readinessHealthCheckType.getData() != null) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can readinessHealthCheckType be null and throw npe?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the type can't be null because it has default value. In the documentation is said that the default value is process
Yavor16
force-pushed
the
add-readiness-healthcheck
branch
from
a3c5ad2 to
fcf09bc
Compare
LMCROSSITXSADEPLOY-3140
Yavor16
force-pushed
the
add-readiness-healthcheck
branch
from
fcf09bc to
4a9c779
Compare
|
3 participants
No description provided.