Add Routable to Actual LRP #71
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
These readiness_checks will be used to validate the viability of the app
actually serving traffic.
Desired LRP check_definition is now of the form:
```diff
"check_definition": {
"checks": [
{
"http_check": {
"port": 8080,
"path": "/health",
"request_timeout_ms": 10000,
"interval_ms": 123
},
}
],
+ "readiness_checks": [
+ {
+ "tcp_check": {
+ "port": 8080,
+ "connect_timeout_ms": 10000,
+ "interval_ms": 123
+ },
+ }
+ ],
"log_source": ""
},
```
Check json example adapted from our design document (Publicly Accessible):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AS8GzKg3pdAv56nySQTgF4NaqqzrBwmztkL2_8ahKa4/edit?usp=sharing
[#185035661](https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/185035661)
Signed-off-by: Renee Chu <[email protected]>
In order to be able to distinguish between actual_lrps that are ready to serve traffic (i.e. have passed their readiness checks if present), we need to add a field to the actual_lrps to persist this information. We have decided to call this field `routable`, it is a boolean (can only be true/false) and has a default value of `false` when the ActualLRP is created. This commit does the following: - adds the `routable` field to the `actual_lrp` protobuf message - regenerate the protobuf files - adds `routable` field to the ActualLRP model - automatically adds `routable: false` when creating an Unclaimed Actual LRP We also updated the in-repo documentation to account for this change. This commit is part of a larger effort to improve the app healthchecks. To see what we are doing, look at this (publically available) design doc: - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AS8GzKg3pdAv56nySQTgF4NaqqzrBwmztkL2_8ahKa4/edit# [#185037071](https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/185037071) Signed-off-by: Renee Chu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renee Chu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Maria Shaldybin <[email protected]>
ameowlia
requested changes
Jun 30, 2023
Signed-off-by: Renee Chu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Maria Shaldybin <[email protected]>
For backwards compatibility with old BBS, ActualLRP message will have an optional Routable. When it is not set Route Emitter will treat the LRP as routable. Evacuation LRP request now can take optional routable.
ameowlia
approved these changes
Jul 14, 2023
mariash
deleted the
add-condition-property-to-actual-lrp-definition-185037071
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is this change about?
Add Routable property to Actual LRP, accept it in StartActualLRP call and pass down to events consumed by route emitter.
This PR accompanies executor PR Once executor emits ContainerRunning event rep will send information to BBS in StartActualLRP call, which would include information whether the container is routable.
How should this change be described in diego-release release notes?
Support readiness health checks
Please provide any contextual information.
RFC
Thank you!