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
Comments
@Lawouach |
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. |
This Issue has not been active in 365 days. To re-activate this Issue, remove the |
This Issue was closed because it was not reactivated after 7 days of being marked |
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: