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

added remove_named_servers setting for jupyterhub-idle-culler #881

Merged
merged 4 commits into from May 13, 2023

Conversation

consideRatio
Copy link
Member

@consideRatio consideRatio commented Apr 24, 2023

This is a duplicate of #855 by @stevejpurves that has been manually rebased to handle conflicts following from rST to MyST. I had to open a new PR to resolve this as I wasn't allowed to push to #855

@stevejpurves is this okay with you to merge? I made one edit besides the rST -> MyST markdown conversions required to solve merge conflicts from #863. You can see that change in a comment below.

Closes #855.

Original PR

If you are using TLJH with named servers, it can be a requirement that the server is removed when culled. This PR is to expose the underlying IdleCuller option, allowing it to be set via tljh-config.

  • Add / update documentation
  • Add tests

@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@ the users will not be culled alongside their notebooks and will continue to exis
services.cull.users = False
```

If named servers are in use, they are not removed after being culled.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I make one edit during the rebase here.

Previously it said If named servers are in use, remove the server after stopping it. which didn't make sense to describe the default value of False for remove_named_servers.

@consideRatio
Copy link
Member Author

Hey @stevejpurves, this is based on your PR in #855, but also manually handling merge conflicts from having merged #863. If its alright with you, I'll go for a merge here!

@consideRatio
Copy link
Member Author

I'm going for a merge, hoping its okay!

@consideRatio consideRatio merged commit 186ae71 into jupyterhub:main May 13, 2023
13 of 20 checks passed
@consideRatio consideRatio self-assigned this Jun 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants