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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Implement healthcheck for remote client #3476

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 19, 2019
Merged

Implement healthcheck for remote client #3476

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 19, 2019

Conversation

ashley-cui
Copy link
Member

Previously unimplemented. Works the same way the local one does, except its remote.

Signed-off-by: Ashley Cui [email protected]

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Jul 2, 2019

/approve

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ashley-cui, mheon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 2, 2019
@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Jul 2, 2019

LGTM on my end
@baude @jwhonce PTAL

@ashley-cui ashley-cui force-pushed the remotehealthcheck branch from bed0116 to 15fe82d Compare July 2, 2019 18:31
TomSweeneyRedHat
TomSweeneyRedHat reviewed Jul 2, 2019
View reviewed changes
API.md Outdated
<div style="background-color: #E8E8E8; padding: 15px; margin: 10px; border-radius: 10px;">

method HealthCheckRun(nameOrID: [string](https://godoc.org/builtin#string)) [string](https://godoc.org/builtin#string)</div>
ealthCheckRun executes defined containter's healthcheck command
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/containter's/container's/ (rogue 't')

TomSweeneyRedHat
TomSweeneyRedHat reviewed Jul 2, 2019
View reviewed changes
API.md Outdated

method HealthCheckRun(nameOrID: [string](https://godoc.org/builtin#string)) [string](https://godoc.org/builtin#string)</div>
ealthCheckRun executes defined containter's healthcheck command
nd returns the containter's health status.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/nd/and/

TomSweeneyRedHat
TomSweeneyRedHat reviewed Jul 2, 2019
View reviewed changes
cmd/podman/varlink/io.podman.varlink Outdated
@@ -522,6 +522,10 @@ method GetContainersByStatus(status: []string) -> (containerS: []Container)

method Top (nameOrID: string, descriptors: []string) -> (top: []string)

#HealthCheckRun executes defined containter's healthcheck command
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/containter/container/

TomSweeneyRedHat
TomSweeneyRedHat reviewed Jul 2, 2019
View reviewed changes
pkg/varlinkapi/containers.go Outdated
@@ -776,3 +776,16 @@ func (i *LibpodAPI) Top(call iopodman.VarlinkCall, nameOrID string, descriptors
}
return call.ReplyTop(topInfo)
}

//HealthCheckRun executes defined containter's healthcheck command and returns the containter's health status.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/containter/container

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jul 3, 2019

Does this make sense to implement? It seems like a strange use case.

@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Jul 3, 2019

As much or as little as any other command, imho yes

@ashley-cui ashley-cui force-pushed the remotehealthcheck branch 4 times, most recently from cda815f to 99d4914 Compare July 5, 2019 20:20
@jwhonce
Copy link
Member

jwhonce commented Jul 9, 2019

LGTM

@ashley-cui ashley-cui force-pushed the remotehealthcheck branch from 99d4914 to bc5feeb Compare July 9, 2019 17:52
@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #3574) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 16, 2019
vrothberg
vrothberg reviewed Jul 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, needs a rebase

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 22, 2019
@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #3143) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 22, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 23, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 6, 2019
@ashley-cui ashley-cui force-pushed the remotehealthcheck branch 2 times, most recently from fc484af to 5a3638a Compare August 8, 2019 14:49
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Aug 8, 2019
@ashley-cui ashley-cui force-pushed the remotehealthcheck branch 2 times, most recently from b049f4c to 2146275 Compare August 8, 2019 20:28
@rh-atomic-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #3753) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 12, 2019
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Aug 13, 2019

@ashley-cui Needs a rebase.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 13, 2019
@ashley-cui ashley-cui force-pushed the remotehealthcheck branch 2 times, most recently from 7898e05 to 4e0d01b Compare August 19, 2019 14:48
@ashley-cui ashley-cui added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Aug 19, 2019
@ashley-cui
Implement healthcheck for remote client
8c7014f 
Previously unimplemented. Works the same way the local one does, except its remote.

Signed-off-by: Ashley Cui <[email protected]>
@ashley-cui ashley-cui removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Aug 19, 2019
@ashley-cui
Copy link
Member Author

@rhatdan tests finally okay. PTAL

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Aug 19, 2019

Nice work
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 19, 2019
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit d23639a into containers:master Aug 19, 2019
@ashley-cui ashley-cui deleted the remotehealthcheck branch July 17, 2020 13:47
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 24, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 24, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat left review comments

@vrothberg vrothberg vrothberg left review comments

Assignees

@rhatdan rhatdan

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
10 participants
@ashley-cui @mheon @openshift-ci-robot @rhatdan @baude @jwhonce @rh-atomic-bot @vrothberg @TomSweeneyRedHat @openshift-merge-robot