Skip to content

Add note about script execution timeout config#25189

Merged
sgress454 merged 1 commit intodocs-v4.63.0from
sgress454/doc-script-timeout-config
Jan 7, 2025
Merged

Add note about script execution timeout config#25189
sgress454 merged 1 commit intodocs-v4.63.0from
sgress454/doc-script-timeout-config

Conversation

@sgress454
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

relates to #24247

There's nothing actually wrong in the current docs. We document that to set script_execution_timeout in a YAML file you do:

agent_options:
  script_execution_timeout: 600

which is correct. It's just that in the UI we hide the top-level agent_options key entirely. This makes sense from a UX standpoint but it's easy to see how someone could get confused. The best option would be to have script_execution_timeout always returned from the config endpoint so that it appeared in the right place in the UI and the user would just have to edit it, but I'd wait for more reports on this before committing that level of effort.

@sgress454 sgress454 merged commit ed1d62d into docs-v4.63.0 Jan 7, 2025
@sgress454 sgress454 deleted the sgress454/doc-script-timeout-config branch January 7, 2025 16:05
sgress454 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 7, 2025
relates to #24247 

There's nothing actually wrong in the current docs. We document that to
set `script_execution_timeout` in a YAML file you do:

```yaml
agent_options:
  script_execution_timeout: 600
```

which is correct. It's just that in the UI we hide the top-level
`agent_options` key entirely. This makes sense from a UX standpoint but
it's easy to see how someone could get confused. The _best_ option would
be to have `script_execution_timeout` always returned from the config
endpoint so that it appeared in the right place in the UI and the user
would just have to edit it, but I'd wait for more reports on this before
committing that level of effort.
rachaelshaw pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 7, 2025
This PR cherry-picks a couple of docs changes I added to the docs-4.63.0
branch. These changes were approved and merged in
#25181 and
#25189, before I belatedly asked
whether that was the correct process.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants