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.

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

Do we need a synchronization mechanism? #62

Closed
Lawouach opened this issue May 25, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Do we need a synchronization mechanism? #62

Lawouach opened this issue May 25, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@Lawouach
Copy link
Contributor

Right now, the only way to give room for a process to happen is to use a pause before/after. This is obviously fine for fairly simple scenarios, but sometimes this is not enough.

So, do we need a more evolved synchronization mechanism?

I can see the benefit but it feels like a slippery slope because that means the toolkit becomes a state machine and increases in complexity. At first sight, I'm scared of that.

But I need the input from the community to make a better judgement.

@valeriap
Copy link

valeriap commented Nov 7, 2018

@Lawouach
In order to give the system enough time for recovering after an error injection before validating again the steady state hypothesis, the only way is to specify a pause after the last method.
What about adding the possibility for steady state hypothesis or for its probes to match the tolerance within a specified amount of time?
This would make the tests faster.
And in case the tolerance would be allowed also in probes used as methods, this approach would also provide some sort of synchronization.

@Lawouach
Copy link
Contributor Author

Lawouach commented Nov 7, 2018

I think there are various discussions around the same subject indeed.

When we started the chaostoolkit, we were very much on the idea you are exploring, not testing. But we also acknowledge now that once you have explored, you want to run continuously with a tester mindset.

The current spec has limits herein that regards. I think we need to start considering a testing mode where, indeed, you look for more control when to bail from the experiment. For instance, others have reported wanting to bail from the method itself by using tolerance there too.

I'm thinking this needs to be addressed before 1.0 because it would be lacking otherwise. I'll come up with a proposal this week.

@github-actions
Copy link

This Issue has not been active in 365 days. To re-activate this Issue, remove the Stale label or comment on it. If not re-activated, this Issue will be closed in 7 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Aug 11, 2021
@github-actions
Copy link

This Issue was closed because it was not reactivated after 7 days of being marked Stale.

Chaos Toolkit automation moved this from To do to Done Aug 22, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Chaos Toolkit
  
Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants