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

Provide support for using AND logic for triggers #3567

Open
tomkerkhove opened this issue Aug 19, 2022 · 7 comments
Open

Provide support for using AND logic for triggers #3567

tomkerkhove opened this issue Aug 19, 2022 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
feature-request All issues for new features that have not been committed to needs-discussion stale-bot-ignore All issues that should not be automatically closed by our stale bot

Comments

@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

Proposal

Allows end-users to scale out/in when the queue depth is high enough, and it is within a given time window, for example

Use-Case

Provide support for using AND logic for triggers so that it scales when all triggers meet the criteria

Anything else?

No response

@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove added needs-discussion feature-request All issues for new features that have not been committed to labels Aug 19, 2022
@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member

I think we can close this because it's not doable without formulas (and they already have its own issue) because it's the HPA Controller who does it, KEDA only exposes the raw metrics.
WDYT?

@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member Author

I don't really agree as the formula should be transparent to the end-user.

If I have two triggers, I should simply be able to say scale when both meet the criteria and not worry about writing formulas.

(That does not mean formulas are bad, but they serve a different audience)

@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member

Right now we have these 2 issues related with this:
Composed (Logical/Priority) Triggers
Support custom formula for multiple metrics

could anyone of them match with this? just to not duplicate issues

@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member Author

#3330 is related but not 100% the same, #2440 is what this feature should build on but not solve my needs.

And then there is also #2614 but that's more advanced and for later on imo

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Oct 24, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale All issues that are marked as stale due to inactivity label Oct 24, 2022
@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove removed the stale All issues that are marked as stale due to inactivity label Oct 25, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Dec 24, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale All issues that are marked as stale due to inactivity label Dec 24, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Dec 31, 2022

This issue has been automatically closed due to inactivity.

@stale stale bot closed this as completed Dec 31, 2022
@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove reopened this Dec 31, 2022
@stale stale bot removed the stale All issues that are marked as stale due to inactivity label Dec 31, 2022
@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove added the stale-bot-ignore All issues that should not be automatically closed by our stale bot label Dec 31, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature-request All issues for new features that have not been committed to needs-discussion stale-bot-ignore All issues that should not be automatically closed by our stale bot
Projects
Status: Proposed
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants