expired locked rules probe ported to SQLAlchemy#46
expired locked rules probe ported to SQLAlchemy#46FernandoGarzon wants to merge 1 commit intorucio:masterfrom
Conversation
FernandoGarzon
force-pushed
the
expired_locked_rules_PROBE
branch
from
021cbc0 to
667561d
Compare
ericvaandering
left a comment
ericvaandering
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dchristidis asking for your review too since this is part of the common probes
common/check_expired_locked_rules
Outdated
| for row in session.execute(query): | ||
| print('Locked expired rules') | ||
| query = (session.query(models.ReplicationRule.id, models.ReplicationRule.scope, | ||
| models.ReplicationRule.name, models.ReplicationRule.rse_expression)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please format that correctly. PyCharm does a nice job or just make sure the various "models" line up under each other and that the filters line up under session.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it look better now?
common/check_expired_locked_rules
Outdated
| print 'Datasets expired with locked rules' | ||
| for row in session.execute(query): | ||
| print('Datasets expired with locked rules') | ||
| query = (session.query(models.ReplicationRule.id,models.ReplicationRule.scope, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same thing. Format these nicely
common/check_expired_locked_rules
Outdated
| status = CRITICAL | ||
| print row[0], row[1], row[2], row[3] | ||
| id = unicode(row[0]) | ||
| print(id, row[1], row[2], row[3]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dchristidis do we gain anything by printing out the results of these queries? CMS is only using this to feed to monitoring, so we don't care about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Printing is on the old probes, so I just copied that. Should I delete those? @dchristidis
ericvaandering
left a comment
ericvaandering
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please see comments inline
FernandoGarzon
force-pushed
the
expired_locked_rules_PROBE
branch
from
bcecc72 to
2fc4118
Compare
|
Closing in favour of #133. |
4 participants
No description provided.