You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
looking at alloc.go, it contains a bit of code that checks if allocation is running:
if allocStub.ClientStatus != "running" {
app.log.Debug("ignoring alloc since it's not running", "name", allocStub.Name, "status", allocStub.ClientStatus)
continue
}
Is there a specific reason why this if statement exists?
If removing this statement would not break the code in any way I would like to suggest either putting this if statement under an optional flag (either ommit or keep) or removing it entirely.
The reason for this is that you would still want to log allocations that completed/failed before the alloc fetch/refresh happened. I know the default refresh is 10s but this could be a lot larger number for some. In case you would run a lot of short lived batch jobs (creating different allocations) or jobs failing often after starting and the fetch allocations wouldn't trigger while it was running, you would be missing all of these logs.
Any considerations?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
looking at alloc.go, it contains a bit of code that checks if allocation is running:
Is there a specific reason why this if statement exists?
If removing this statement would not break the code in any way I would like to suggest either putting this if statement under an optional flag (either ommit or keep) or removing it entirely.
The reason for this is that you would still want to log allocations that completed/failed before the alloc fetch/refresh happened. I know the default refresh is 10s but this could be a lot larger number for some. In case you would run a lot of short lived batch jobs (creating different allocations) or jobs failing often after starting and the fetch allocations wouldn't trigger while it was running, you would be missing all of these logs.
Any considerations?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: