-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.3k
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
[skip-ci] Service Status RFC #59621
[skip-ci] Service Status RFC #59621
Conversation
Pinging @elastic/kibana-platform (Team:Platform) |
c6c5534
to
497ff50
Compare
- Add clarity about which Core services are included in `CoreStatus` - Add JSON-serializable types for `meta` property - Add overall status calculation section - Add note that some plugin contract APIs may throw - Add `self` argument to `unavailableWhen` utility - Remove unresolved questions that have been addressed
Moving a little aggressively on this one, but I'm going to go ahead and put this RFC in the final comment period. If there are any fundamental issues with this proposal, please raise ASAP. If no fundamental problems are found, this RFC will be accepted and merged on Monday, March 16. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense to me. I think this will be a nice evolution of the legacy API.
Added a couple notes, but they are all minor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hooray for resilient error handling!
/** | ||
* The current availability level of the service. | ||
*/ | ||
level: ServiceStatusLevel.available; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't that be just ServiceStatusLevel
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This union type is to express that when level is not available
, the summary
field is required. This first part of the union is the case where it is not required.
Summary
RFC for #41983
View rendered