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

Allow distinction between possibly disruptive and non-disruptive UpgradeJobHooks #37

Closed
bastjan opened this issue Aug 11, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #45
Closed

Allow distinction between possibly disruptive and non-disruptive UpgradeJobHooks #37

bastjan opened this issue Aug 11, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #45
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@bastjan
Copy link
Contributor

bastjan commented Aug 11, 2023

Summary

As cluster operator
I want to mark UpgradeJobHooks as possibly disruptive
So that I can decide if i should set up any alert silences

As cluster operator
I want to mark UpgradeJobHooks as possibly disruptive
So that I can have metrics and mark the jobs in dashboards

Context

At VSHN we use UpgradeJobHooks to set silences and to do various disruptive and non-disruptive tasks.

We only want to set silences if there is a possibly disruptive job or an upgrade.
We want to distinguished "risky" upgrades from "noop" upgrades on our dashboards.

Out of Scope

No response

Further links

Acceptance Criteria

  • UpgradeJobHook CRD has a new field allowing to mark jobs as disruptive.
  • UpgradeJob has a metric if it matches any disruptive UpgradeJobHook
  • UpgradeJobHook pods have an environment variable passed in with the disruptive status of the current hook and of the disruptive status of all matching hooks.

Implementation Ideas

No response

@bastjan bastjan added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 11, 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 a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant