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
A node configured with operator OR seems to logical AND results.
A node configured with operator AND seems to logical OR results
To Reproduce
Configure a node as OR
Add several services to node
Set a node to fail state
Expected behavior
If any services is in fail state, node shows fail state, i.e. service 1 OR service 2 OR service 3 fails.
Actual Behaviour
If all services are in fail state, node shows fail state, i.e. service 1 AND service 2 AND service 3 fails.
Additional context
Converse behaviour for AND operator, i.e. any service fail will trigger node to show failed.
Maybe developer had inverted logical approach, i.e. logic operates on OK state - service 1 OR service 2 OR service 3 is OK. This is not intuitive to me. I do not see documentation describing this logic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Our operators use the OK or UP status to determine the result. That means, in case of the OR operator, a node is OK as long as at least one subnode is OK/UP. The AND operator, on the other hand, expects all sub-nodes to be OK/UP.
Though, we'll update our documentation to make it more clear how a node's state is calculated.
Describe the bug
A node configured with operator OR seems to logical AND results.
A node configured with operator AND seems to logical OR results
To Reproduce
Expected behavior
If any services is in fail state, node shows fail state, i.e. service 1 OR service 2 OR service 3 fails.
Actual Behaviour
If all services are in fail state, node shows fail state, i.e. service 1 AND service 2 AND service 3 fails.
Additional context
Converse behaviour for AND operator, i.e. any service fail will trigger node to show failed.
Maybe developer had inverted logical approach, i.e. logic operates on OK state - service 1 OR service 2 OR service 3 is OK. This is not intuitive to me. I do not see documentation describing this logic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: