You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 20, 2024. It is now read-only.
(by martin-kalcok)
This is a good point, the output should be consistent.
In my opinion, adding whether the check passed or failed as part of the message body is superfluous, as the message is already pre-faced with [OK], [WARN] or [FAIL].
I also don't think that using underscores in output intended for humans is desired.
I think that good message format should contain:
Clear indication of pass/fail
Which unit/app/machine is the message related to. (This one is tricky, as not all checks have same scope. Some are per-unit, some are application wide and some are concerned with the machine)
Human readable check name
Optional additional info. I think that additional info is really only needed in case of failure, checks that pass do not need to burden user with info about why they passed.
What do you think about following format?
[][<unit_or_app_name>] -
Example:
[OK] [Machine 0] Check Affected Machines
[OK] [nova-compute] Availability Zone check
[FAIL] [nova-compute/0] Running VMs check - Unit has 2 running VMs
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
We should standardize the format of the results messages of checks,
as some use different format, what cause output to be little bit
confusing.
A good example are results from checking the nova-compute unit.
There are three types of messages:
from (although this is obvious)
I think it should be standardized and mentioned in the contribution.
Imported from Launchpad using lp2gh.
date created: 2021-10-21T15:23:45Z
owner: rgildein
assignee: None
the launchpad url
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: