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

[skip-ci] Service Status RFC #59621

Merged
merged 14 commits into from Mar 16, 2020
Merged

[skip-ci] Service Status RFC #59621

merged 14 commits into from Mar 16, 2020

Conversation

@joshdover
Copy link
Member

joshdover commented Mar 8, 2020

Summary

RFC for #41983

View rendered

@elasticmachine

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

elasticmachine commented Mar 8, 2020

Pinging @elastic/kibana-platform (Team:Platform)

@joshdover joshdover force-pushed the joshdover:rfc/service-status branch from c6c5534 to 497ff50 Mar 8, 2020
@joshdover joshdover requested a review from elastic/kibana-platform Mar 9, 2020
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0008_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
joshdover added 3 commits Mar 11, 2020
- Add clarity about which Core services are included in `CoreStatus`
- Add JSON-serializable types for `meta` property
- Add overall status calculation section
- Add note that some plugin contract APIs may throw
- Add `self` argument to `unavailableWhen` utility
- Remove unresolved questions that have been addressed
@joshdover

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

joshdover commented Mar 11, 2020

Moving a little aggressively on this one, but I'm going to go ahead and put this RFC in the final comment period. If there are any fundamental issues with this proposal, please raise ASAP.

If no fundamental problems are found, this RFC will be accepted and merged on Monday, March 16.

Copy link
Member

lukeelmers left a comment

Makes sense to me. I think this will be a nice evolution of the legacy API.

Added a couple notes, but they are all minor

rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Show resolved Hide resolved
rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@rudolf
rudolf approved these changes Mar 16, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

rudolf left a comment

Hooray for resilient error handling!

rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
/**
* The current availability level of the service.
*/
level: ServiceStatusLevel.available;

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@pgayvallet

pgayvallet Mar 16, 2020

Contributor

Shouldn't that be just ServiceStatusLevel ?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@joshdover

joshdover Mar 16, 2020

Author Member

This union type is to express that when level is not available, the summary field is required. This first part of the union is the case where it is not required.

rfcs/text/0010_service_status.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
joshdover added 2 commits Mar 16, 2020
@joshdover joshdover merged commit 7fa5c2f into elastic:master Mar 16, 2020
4 of 5 checks passed
4 of 5 checks passed
elasticsearch-ci/docs Build triggered for merge commit.
Details
CLA All commits passed the check
Details
kibana-ci Docs only change detected, CI is not required
prbot:release note labels
prbot:release version labels
kibana-platform automation moved this from Pending Review to Done (7.7) Mar 16, 2020
@joshdover joshdover deleted the joshdover:rfc/service-status branch Mar 16, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
kibana-platform
  
Done (7.8)
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.