Add support for not billing during outages #68
Conversation
Currently hardcoded values for the MGHPCC shutdown during May 2024. Implemented via subtraction of the runtime of instances during the outage.
| @@ -69,6 +69,12 @@ class InstanceRuntime(object): | |||
| total_seconds_running: int = 0 | |||
| total_seconds_stopped: int = 0 | |||
|
|
|||
| def __sub__(self, other): | |||
- Split out get_runtime_for_instance to allow easier testing and improve legibility. - Added testing. - Testing found a bug when calling get_runtime_during multiple times due to it changing state in the Instance and InstanceEvent objects. Used function variables instead of modifying the object.
|
@naved001 thanks for the review! Made an additional commit that made some small refactoring to allow testing and fixed a weird bug that I was encountering in testing. |
| @@ -115,7 +109,7 @@ def test_instance_no_delete_action(): | |||
|
|
|||
| r = i.get_runtime_during( | |||
| datetime(year=1999, month=11, day=1, hour=0, minute=0, second=0), | |||
| datetime(year=2000, month=12, day=1, hour=0, minute=0, second=0), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should have been 1999 all along, however it was clamped during a previous call of get_runtime_during therefore it hid the mistake.
| ) | ||
| runtime = runtime - excluded_runtime | ||
|
|
||
| return runtime |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe I am being paranoid, but should there be a check anywhere to assert that all excluded_intervals fall within the start and end date? If not, it could cause the runtime to be negative
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's good to be paranoid and that seems like a valid concern. I can do that in a follow-up if that's okay. Right now the excluded_intervals are hardcoded in the file and are not user entered.
Currently hardcoded values for the MGHPCC shutdown during May 2024.
Implemented via subtraction of the runtime of instances during the outage.