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

Store error messages as part of the deployment #79

Closed
bmelville opened this issue Nov 16, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

Store error messages as part of the deployment #79

bmelville opened this issue Nov 16, 2015 · 3 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@bmelville
Copy link
Contributor

When a deployment fails, we should store error messages along-side the status inside the deployment

@zmerlynn
Copy link
Contributor

Do you want to store the deployment at all if the expansion fails? I was just surprised by:

$ dm deploy templates/spark/v1/spark.yaml
2015/11/19 16:45:55 cannot deploy configuration named spark.yaml: status code: 400 status: 400 Bad Request : cannot expand template named spark.yaml (template expansion: expandybird response:
error expanding template: error expanding template spark.yaml: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "./expansion/expansion.py", line 372, in <module>
    main()
  File "./expansion/expansion.py", line 369, in main
    print Expand(template, imports, env=env, validate_schema=validate_schema)
  File "./expansion/expansion.py", line 57, in Expand
    raise ExpansionError('config', str(e))
__main__.ExpansionError: unexpected '}' Resource: config
):
imports:
- path: spark.jinja

resources:
- name: spark
  type: spark.jinja


zml@zml:~/deployment-manager$ dm deploy templates/spark/v1/spark.yaml 
2015/11/19 16:49:12 cannot deploy configuration named spark.yaml: status code: 400 status: 400 Bad Request : Deployment spark.yaml already exists

bmelville added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2015
Add resource state / errors to manifest. First step to #79, #80
@vaikas
Copy link

vaikas commented Nov 23, 2015

Yeah, so the thinking was that the flow would be deploy, if it fails, you'd look at the errors and update. However, if it seems like it's more natural to fail fast and not even create a deployment, I can change the semantics. Unless somebody complains loudly about this, I can make the change.

@bmelville
Copy link
Contributor Author

That change will be hard to keep around once we move to an asynchronous API.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:46 AM, vaikas-google notifications@github.com
wrote:

Yeah, so the thinking was that the flow would be deploy, if it fails,
you'd look at the errors and update. However, if it seems like it's more
natural to fail fast and not even create a deployment, I can change the
semantics. Unless somebody complains loudly about this, I can make the
change.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#79 (comment)
.

@jackgr jackgr closed this as completed Nov 24, 2015
MichaelMorrisEst pushed a commit to Nordix/helm that referenced this issue Nov 17, 2023
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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants