aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Huang Kai <>
Subject [Discussion] Implementing a is_health_check_enabled function OR by checking the presence of an instance of health checker
Date Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:25:27 GMT
Hi folks,

I'm currently blocked on the review  I was wondering if
you guys can provide some insights into the two proposed approaches on RB and help me proceed.

The problem is that the aurora executor needs to determine if it should send a TASK_RUNNING
message based on whether health check is enabled for an assigned task.

Initially, I created an is_health_check_enabled(assigned_task) function in, and
use it in aurora executor. See: However, Maxim
raised a valid point that is_health_check_enabled has some duplication with the set up of
health checker in later step. Therefore we should reuse the logic of is_health_check_enabled
as much as possible in health_checker.

One solution is to create a dedicated function called is_health_check_enabled for an assigned_task,
and reuse it when we set up a health checker. The benefit is better abstraction and ease for

The challenge of implementing it is that this function seems a little bit heavy-weighted,
we have to parse an assigned_task, compute the port map, and get health_checker, health_check_config
from it as well. One solution I can come up with is to store all the computation result(port_map,
health_checker, health_check_config) in a utility class. So that it can be reuse later. But
a downside here is that the is_health_check_enabled now serves multiple purposes, and the
meaning of this function is not clear. It should only answer one question: is health check
enabled on this task?

A second solution is to check if health check is enabled for an assigned_task by checking
the presence of a health checker instance. A benefit of doing this is that we can set up the
necessary health checkers and check if health check is enabled in one pass. In this way, we
used the logic as much as possible and eliminate the duplications. See

Could you guys let me know your thought on the two approaches? If no one objects to the second
solution, I will modify the executor as



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message