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

Read resource state from scheduler instead of DB #8253

Closed
wouterdb opened this issue Oct 22, 2024 · 0 comments
Closed

Read resource state from scheduler instead of DB #8253

wouterdb opened this issue Oct 22, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@wouterdb
Copy link
Contributor

When doing a deploy_start, we read the state of all dependent resources from the DB.
We could also read this from the scheduler itself.

Once the new code is proven sufficiently stable, we should also make the switch here.

inmantaci pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 24, 2024
# Description

closes #8189

- [x] we no longer set the deploy done field, spin out remove to other ticket #8252
- [x] spin out ticket to read status of requires from scheduler instead of DB #8253

# Self Check:

Strike through any lines that are not applicable (`~~line~~`) then check the box

- [x] Attached issue to pull request
- [x] Changelog entry
- [x] Type annotations are present
- [x] Code is clear and sufficiently documented
- [x] No (preventable) type errors (check using make mypy or make mypy-diff)
- [x] Sufficient test cases (reproduces the bug/tests the requested feature)
- [x] Correct, in line with design
- [ ] End user documentation is included or an issue is created for end-user documentation (add ref to issue here: )
- [ ] If this PR fixes a race condition in the test suite, also push the fix to the relevant stable branche(s) (see [test-fixes](https://internal.inmanta.com/development/core/tasks/build-master.html#test-fixes) for more info)
@jptrindade jptrindade self-assigned this Oct 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants